Amongst the peoples of the Pacific there are characteristic attitudes, valuesand behaviours which are often referred to as the 'Pacific Way'. Associatedwith this is a widespread, symptomatic mode of space organisation consist-ing of single celled pavilions associated with named open spaces. Aspects ofthis spatial system are used as elements of regional identity which tends tobe associated only with the indigenous. However it will be argued that colo-nial spatial patterns are also significant in giving local identity.Regional architectural identity is usually seen to derive from the landscape,environmental and tectonic characteristics of place, and there is a wide va-riation of these factors in the Pasific. For instance there is considerablelandform variations across the range of Pacific Islands and it can be shownthat in New Zealand, for Instance, the perceptions and attitudes to landscapevary form European to Maori culture. Historically too there has been a re-versal of response to landscape within European culture from the despair ofthe early settler to the enjoyment of the present day tourists. Similarly theclimate changes from tropictl to temperate (even sub-arctic in New Zea-land) and there is environmental variation from high islands to low islands.Available materials and technology vary considerably from Large islands(such as Papua New Guinea) to small atolls.Pre- European migration has continued across the Pacific for many centu-ries so that distinctions between groups are not as simple as at first ap-pears. There is on the other hand considerable variation in the treatmentand decoration of building forms from island to island and even within is-lands. European colonisation occured in the eighteenth and nineteenth cen-turies and was initially restricted to beach front settlements facing out tosea. Later colonial development has tended to hide and cover this originalbeach scene of exchange, confrontation and co-existence with planned settlements. The colonial phenomenon of mimicry where the coloniser imitates the formsof the parent culture produces breaks or slippages between the metropolitanmodel and the colonial copy. These misfits (the condition of almost the samebut not quite) are usually treated ambivalently in a way typical of colonialdiscourse but it is proposed that it is this very slippage that accounts forregional characteristics and differences. The pattern of mimicking andmocking persists today with the continuation of economic and cultural colo-nialism.Although colonial architecture constitutes the bulk of the built environmentin the Pacific it is either rejected, ignored or treated as unproblematic bycommentators and historians. It is still regarded as different to and opposedto the indigenous architecture although it is now used and inhabited bymembers of the local cultures producing yet more slippage. It is suggestedthat the distinction between the colonial and the indigenous architecturewill become increasingly blurred and that a future regional architecturewill develop from both sources.This paper will be illustrated with examples from Polynesian and Melane-sian Pacific Islands.