Any feedback is appreciated. This is my second application cycle, I got rejected from all the schools I applied to: Rice, MIT, and GSAPP.
I am planning on reapplying next year to Rice, GSAPP, and more schools (possibly Tulane, Syracuse, UT Austin, Pratt, the list is growing.) I want to get in somewhere next year, so I am starting to work on my application now.
1) Image wise, I think most of the projects are pretty solid but they're lacking in the quality of the drawings. I didn't see plans or sections for some of the projects and overall it seems like you could have included more drawings that help to describe each project.
2) The portfolio design and organization needs some work. With grad school portfolios I would highly suggest to reduce the visual clutter and just simplify your spreads. Try to stick to one font but use it in different ways (bold, smaller font size, italics, etc..) and in terms of layout design try to stick to a clear organization strategy. Text should be easy to read preferably on a white or neutral background. Images should have enough breathing room, or white space, around them so that you don't have confusing overlap or visual clashing.
3) Your cover page is a little confusing. It doesn't really speak to your architectural works. I would instead use some abstracted imagery from your portfolio or a some kind of nuanced design. Simple is better, always. Also don't forget to always title the cover sheet with your name and year!
Feel free to email me if you have any other questions! Good luck with the next round of applications!
midlander
Apr 3, 24 9:41 am
first of all, it takes some courage to put a portfolio with your name on an anonymous site like this and ask for criticism - it's a good sign that you are looking for honest feedback. it's always hard to give clear criticism to a stranger without coming across as rude and i apologize for that; please recognize i wish you well and imagine you're capable of doing whatever you need to get into a school that suits your interests. i hope this is helpful for you.
1. the style of the portfolio is part of the presentation - and this doesn't feel like you're trying to present yourself seriously as a thinker for an academic audience. the collage style feels unserious and scrap-booky. (this is an easy thing to fix but also the least important problem in the portfolio)
2. there isn't a single building plan. drawing floor plans and site plans are fundamental to architecture. real buildings are designed for real sites and have functional requirements that can only be resolved with good planning. none of your projects seem to consider this.
3. building sections. while you do include several of these, they are simplistic diagrams that show nothing about how the building structure works or how the program and circulation are organized in space.
4. technical considerations. it's not the first thing to focus on in an academic portfolio, but there is nothing in here that shows any interest in what makes a building work - what the facades are, how the structure works, how the spaces are built and what building systems are needed to support the usage.
5. site context. again, all of these projects seem generic, not designed for specific places. the best of the art of architecture has a profound relationship with the surrounding site, but even ordinary buildings need to resolve parking, slopes, and connections to the surrounding city or rural area.
6. expression. these projects don't show much effort to create any kind of spatial experience or stylistic effect. this isn't the thing everyone cares about, but it is what top architects aspire to do. and you are applying to top schools.
7. there are good things in this. the presentation is organized and logical. your drawings and diagrams are clear. and i do get a sense of an optimistic and caring designer focused on humanism rather than grand ideas - which is valuable.
i'm surprised by the list of schools you've applied to. this is a nice basic portfolio and adequate for an entry level job application, but the content is much too simple for what those schools are looking for. if you are serious in wanting to attend such a program, you need to spend a substantial effort to look at the kind of work their students pursue and understand what matters to the schools - then redo a few of these projects accordingly.
Your design ideas are good but the work is underdeveloped. The projects deserve a much more ambitious effort to show that you really understand what distinguishes architecture from merely talking about buildings. I would focus on projects 1 and 3 and really develop them into fully thought out buildings with real sites and focus on what makes them meaningful and uniquely interesting - they do have potential.
Any feedback is appreciated. This is my second application cycle, I got rejected from all the schools I applied to: Rice, MIT, and GSAPP.
I am planning on reapplying next year to Rice, GSAPP, and more schools (possibly Tulane, Syracuse, UT Austin, Pratt, the list is growing.) I want to get in somewhere next year, so I am starting to work on my application now.
https://issuu.com/visionsofnin...
Hi Lizzie!
I took a quick look at your portfolio.
Here's a few comments:
1) Image wise, I think most of the projects are pretty solid but they're lacking in the quality of the drawings. I didn't see plans or sections for some of the projects and overall it seems like you could have included more drawings that help to describe each project.
2) The portfolio design and organization needs some work. With grad school portfolios I would highly suggest to reduce the visual clutter and just simplify your spreads. Try to stick to one font but use it in different ways (bold, smaller font size, italics, etc..) and in terms of layout design try to stick to a clear organization strategy. Text should be easy to read preferably on a white or neutral background. Images should have enough breathing room, or white space, around them so that you don't have confusing overlap or visual clashing.
3) Your cover page is a little confusing. It doesn't really speak to your architectural works. I would instead use some abstracted imagery from your portfolio or a some kind of nuanced design. Simple is better, always. Also don't forget to always title the cover sheet with your name and year!
Feel free to email me if you have any other questions! Good luck with the next round of applications!
first of all, it takes some courage to put a portfolio with your name on an anonymous site like this and ask for criticism - it's a good sign that you are looking for honest feedback. it's always hard to give clear criticism to a stranger without coming across as rude and i apologize for that; please recognize i wish you well and imagine you're capable of doing whatever you need to get into a school that suits your interests. i hope this is helpful for you.
1. the style of the portfolio is part of the presentation - and this doesn't feel like you're trying to present yourself seriously as a thinker for an academic audience. the collage style feels unserious and scrap-booky. (this is an easy thing to fix but also the least important problem in the portfolio)
2. there isn't a single building plan. drawing floor plans and site plans are fundamental to architecture. real buildings are designed for real sites and have functional requirements that can only be resolved with good planning. none of your projects seem to consider this.
3. building sections. while you do include several of these, they are simplistic diagrams that show nothing about how the building structure works or how the program and circulation are organized in space.
4. technical considerations. it's not the first thing to focus on in an academic portfolio, but there is nothing in here that shows any interest in what makes a building work - what the facades are, how the structure works, how the spaces are built and what building systems are needed to support the usage.
5. site context. again, all of these projects seem generic, not designed for specific places. the best of the art of architecture has a profound relationship with the surrounding site, but even ordinary buildings need to resolve parking, slopes, and connections to the surrounding city or rural area.
6. expression. these projects don't show much effort to create any kind of spatial experience or stylistic effect. this isn't the thing everyone cares about, but it is what top architects aspire to do. and you are applying to top schools.
7. there are good things in this. the presentation is organized and logical. your drawings and diagrams are clear. and i do get a sense of an optimistic and caring designer focused on humanism rather than grand ideas - which is valuable.
i'm surprised by the list of schools you've applied to. this is a nice basic portfolio and adequate for an entry level job application, but the content is much too simple for what those schools are looking for. if you are serious in wanting to attend such a program, you need to spend a substantial effort to look at the kind of work their students pursue and understand what matters to the schools - then redo a few of these projects accordingly.
Your design ideas are good but the work is underdeveloped. The projects deserve a much more ambitious effort to show that you really understand what distinguishes architecture from merely talking about buildings. I would focus on projects 1 and 3 and really develop them into fully thought out buildings with real sites and focus on what makes them meaningful and uniquely interesting - they do have potential.
good luck!