Those CAD drawings need some serious TLC... they are flat and mundane.  No sexy section or technical detail?  What about dirty bar napkin concept sketches?  Anyone can press the render button on Vray and layer PS filters.  That's not what your portfolio should be about.  It should show us how you think and turn design ideas into well-thought out projects.

I agree that the CADs could use some work but in general, I like the scheme and the palette. The work is presented in a coherent and consistent style (with the exception of the interior render, which you can tone down a bit to be more in line with the other shots). 

They way you've chosen to present your line drawings is a bit too much "I'm just going to plop my building here on this thick black line". You try to set them up with a site plan or render, but by doing so, you miss the opportunity to express in more detail how your projects hit the ground. 

It's refreshing to see white space though. Much nicer than the "pew-pew RGB laser tower" full-bleed renders you get from some of the "cutting edge" schools in the US. 

At first glance it's a solid portfolio. However, your method graphic style, specifically in regards to 2D representation needs work.

Some things I noticed.

1. Your sections and plans are not all at the same level of quality. There's no consistency of graphic convention and I don't see a good reason why they shouldn't be. Also, I don't understand the use of red outline as a way to demarcate. 

2. You have no section markers anywhere. Do you expect us to guess where it's being cut?

3. Your site plan for Extension to Stjornarraioshus is lacking any useful information and I can barely tell where your building is. I feel like I have to ask you where your building is - that's a fail. Also, what are those tiny triangles supposed to illustrate? Entrances? 

I think it looks good, but I agree with everything that afrdzak said.

Anyway, for nit-pick sake: The only things I think you should change are the line weights on the 2D drawings. The elevations, plans, sections - on pages 7-11 could all probably be combined onto 1 page. the site plan on pages 24-25 needs to be more apparent with what exactly you're showing. north arrows and graphic scale on the plans would be nice to see.

Lastly, I think you should put that synchronized swimming project first. First impression about the cabin project is that it's fun, but that wouldn't be the first thing I want to see.

this is a nice portfolio with some tasteful work. more than that can't really say without context. a portfolio is a purposeful document that communicates what kind of work you care to do and how you do it. what suits one purpose won't work for another.

if you're applying for jobs or as reference for potential clients put one of the more complex buildings first. the cabins are cute but it's a type that's easy to do well, doesn't prove much about your ability to integrate complex requirements.

You have some very nice work.

If you are using this portfolio to apply for work, I would cut down the size. Also, I would annotate CAD drawings and include some physical models to demonstrate one more skillset. 

If you're going to spend a lot of time perfecting a portfolio of academic and personal work, make sure it's a format that will let you easily swap out and replace projects without too much rejiggering and loss of continuity.  You've already graduated and you're employed, so by the time you're looking for a next job most prospective employers will expect to see professional work - probably at least half your portfolio should be work from this and any other jobs or internships. By the time you're 3-5 years beyond graduation your portfolio probably shouldn't have any student work anymore, though some people insist on keeping one or two school projects in the back of their portfolios.

As a collection of work it's a little bland, and doesn't say much about your abilities either as a designer or with materials and tectonics.  

no physical models?