Simplify the layout it is a little to scrap-bookie I think for the schools you listed which are more into the digital and parametric design realm of architecture but you have some nice work and a strong GPA so you should be good. But see what others say as well... I go to a state school.... but I did get into an IVY.

just a quick look. work looks decent. Sketches are nice too.
But I would seriously consider losing the ripped paper theme. Its really distracting. And the blue color, is somewhat gloomy

Additionally, everything looks very finished, showing more process might help

You sure seem to like circles!

Starting off your portfolio with a parking-lot layout (circular one to boot) will not get you into Columbia, UC Berkley, Pratt, Yale, Penn, or GSD. These schools are too snarky for that.

Thing about landscape architecture is that the finished product most often looks much better than the site plans. It's hard to document nature. Two of my current clients are landscape architects. Their finished projects look quite amazing, but it's hard to read this in their drawings (at least for me). I have tremendous respect for their overall knowledge of growth medium, species, climate appropriateness, and maintenance requirements that makes for a good landscape project.

I would like to see more attention to detail in your designs. What kind of shrubs, trees and perennials did you chose and why. I find this kind of stuff fascinating, mostly because it's outside of my scope of knowledge.

If you can show that you are very passionate about landscaping then you may have a much stronger shot at getting into one of your schools of choice.

Thanks for the comments!  I really appreciate it and I think that you're all right.  "Scrap-bookie" is a great way to put it and I didn't even realize it until it was pointed out.  I plan on getting rid of that completely and most likely uniting the entire thing with some sort of basic common header or possibly a "ribbon" or "band" running throughout the pages. 

Also, I'd like to know what you think about the type of projects I've included.  Which ones should I omit and which ones are most relevant?  Which ones should I spend more time on adding things like more sections/elevations, site analysis, etc? 

I have all the information for what types of trees, shrubs, etc I've specified, but I did not think it was all that necessary for a portfolio I'll be using to apply to Master of Architecture programs.  Do you think that I'm wrong in thinking that?  I can certainly go back and label the plants on my plan views, but it may clutter up a few pages and I don't want to do that unless you think it's necessary.  

I also have a few projects from my early design studios that are you basic abstracted forms type projects.  Is that work worth putting in?  I'm just slightly confused on what I should include. 

Do you think it'd be best to wait a year and apply next fall instead?  I was thinking if I did that then I'd have time to go do an Intro to Architecture course somewhere next summer so that I can get more material for my portfolio that may be more along the lines of what most universities are looking for.  Or should I just give it my best shot now?

why you dont look in the internet some examples of Portafolios, because you have really good works but the style that you present it it's an old fashion way, maybe you need another way to present your works, contemporary landscape architecture needs to be a little bit more focus on construcction of a panorama in wich its involve not just Nature. i guess your work point too much in Nature and those schools were you want to get into it are more technical oriented landscape manage 

If you have a BLA background and want to get into an MArch program at the schools you mentioned here are the steps:

1. go to these two firm's websites: 

http://www.west8.nl/

http://www.fieldoperations.net/

2. look and learn from the graphic design of their websites & the projects they've designed

3. revamp portfolio

4. visit step 2, then step 3 again (rinse and repeat as necessary)

good idea (even if it is a joke)

it looks like your school taught you that landscape design begins with the plan not people, and that a patternbook is totally coolio in place of innovation.  getting into a progressive school might be pretty hard as a result, unless you can show some process that proves more is going on than what we see at first blush. 

nothing wrong with french classical approach but the good plans of that type were always carried out with some kind of effect in mind, usually having to do with connections to the city or the larger landscape and how people would use spaces.  i get none of that sense from the portfolio.  if you have thought about any of the above i would focus on showing it

haha jump. that was harsh! (but honest).

I still have to take away my earlier comment about you being the chillest dude on the planet. You can be spicy at times! :)

hm, actually i wrote it too fast on my i-phone and did not intend for it to be harsh. 

i apologise for the directness

the designs are ok but really need to show the thought process and the "why" of  the design so that the committee that looks through the portfolio can see that you have more to offer than a technical knowledge base.  i am sure it is all there but without that kind of explanation it is really hard to see much more than a group of assignments carried out without a great deal of your own personality in them.  i do like the rendering style though.  it is nice to not see shiny buildings and lens flashes for a change.

just a few quick comments:

you need to show design thinking/design process. I suggest more diagrams that break apart the finished project into a series of separate layers that are somehow exploded (axonometrically?), eg. geometry-surfaces-etc.

lose the torn sketch paper, its very distracting

page 1: the visitors center focuses the eye too much on the building and not the landscape design. Can you make the building more abstract? eg. masses and openings only

page 11: the colored plan has a lower contrast ratio compared to the black/white. This should perhaps be reversed

use a less 'pictorial' approach to your colored views. by that I mean 2-3 colors, the rest should be grayscale

p13-14: use 2 colors of low intensity to delineate ground and foliage

p15-16: the mossy meadows is a typical suburban subdivision layout. it may strike the reviewers as a little too conventional. Hmmm, sorry to sound harsh. Can you incorporate some green features into the text? eg. porous paving, shared geothermal pond system, etc.

good luck.

As a fellow BLA grad with an interest in pursuing a MArch, I can relate to your situation. I think you should still apply, but do not be discouraged if you do not get into any of those programs you mentioned. Please take anything I say as just my opinion and  constructive criticism from a fellow landscape designer who learned this the hard way through my own failed attempt at grad school and several years of professional practice.

Firstly, get focused. Ask yourself why you want to grad school for arch, then research which schools will best cater to that interest. Your portfolio and personal statement should speak to that interest. If you don't know exactly, then in may be in your best interest to apply to a well-rounded program that will allow for a lot exploration. For instance, Pratt and Columbia are heavy into scripting (so I'm told) and if that's not your thing, you might want to eliminate those schools.

Regarding you portfolio, I agree with what everyone says here about your layout. Check out some design magazines, contemporary architecture books, and other student portfolios to see how they present work. I tend to think that a clean, simple layout and font work the best. The portfolio itself should not distract from the content; let your work speak for itself. You can add a few organizing elements to make it less dull or give it a personal touch, but stay away from thematic borders and overly complicated page layouts.

With regards to your work, you will probably get some nice comments from architects, but that is probably because they have such low expectations for what LA can be (through no fault of their own given what often gets built). Contemporary landscape design has less to do about decoration, and more about delineating spaces and creating an experience for its users through form, texture, color, etc. In other words, think more form-giving, less pattern-making. I think grad schools will be far more interested in how you think spatially versus which shrubs you specified.

Also, schools are interested in understanding your thought process. Think about including some diagrams which illustrate your approach or can explain an overriding concept. Don't be afraid to include early sketches as well if they help to diagram your process--especially since you have a beautiful drawing hand! 

If you don't get in, I think you are on the right track to take a intro to architecture course and work for a year to build up your portfolio, technical abilities, and design thought process. Maybe enter some competitions that interest you as well. You have the ability and are taking the right steps now (I wish I was as ambitious as you are now when I was in school), so just focus on making your work clearer and conceptually stronger. We need more architects with LA backgrounds, so best of luck to you!

nice comment, jason.

your opinion of what architects expect of landscape architects is interesting.  i tend to think petra blaise and west 8 when i think of LA.  or at least they are the ones i find most inspiring. as far as i know that is a normal point of view for architects....?

there is a bit of a movement kinda chugging along still that places architecture and landscapes together, called landscape urbanism.  no idea how serious it is taken amongst landscape architects but it is fairly legit in archi-school, and seems to me a pretty decent starting point for design.  perhaps that is a place to start for the OP.  my own feeling is that something at least that rigorous should be clear in the work if you intend to get into high-end grad school.

Looks like everything was covered, but I'll reiterate somethings....

Process.  You need to show a clear process in your thinking.  Sketches, collages, diagrams (look around at some of the more progressive firm's diagrams, Eisenman's old landscape ones come to mind), anything that shows that there is depth to the designs and a systematic approach (even if that is random).

Presentation.  As others are noting, having some work that looks more progressive will be necessary for those schools.  I'd forget about DI's rankings (go read some posts about what people think about those), focus on what the schools you are interested in are looking for, what kind of work comes out of them, etc.

So diagrams/process and a more contemporary presentation to projects would be very helpful and demonstrate a depth to you personally, and also show that you are interested in learning and pushing your own comfort levels.

Competitions/summer programs (I went to one at RISD many years ago that was simply amazing, I'd highly recommend looking into it - great school, just a great time and experience) would be a great way to fill those voids.  

Good luck

hey Trace thanks for your recent advice a week ago on my post about being a civ engineer and working for a real estate developer. that was some of the best damn advice i've been given. long story short i switched majors to finance, i'm breezing through my classes and i'm half way through school. no more staying up until 4 am jamming away at complex calculus and physics problems, now i've got more time to work on my company's marketing. brother you just saved me years worth of struggling in school to get my engineering degree not sure if i was going in the right direction. now i know i'm going in the right direction. the answer was right in front of my face to take finance instead of engineering. thank you.

Glad I could help.  

[Donations are accepted :-) ]