Surveying the territory of the built environment, the casual observer must be struck by the repetition and duplication, even the apparent interchangeability, of architectural form that is emerging throughout the world. From Chicago to Singapore, from corporate skyscraper to private house, architecture transplants and replicates itself with astounding regularity and uniformity. When this occurs and why this occurs is discussed with plausible explanation. Whether this sameness should occur is a more fundamental question which not only focuses on issues of appropriateness and meaning in architecture but also on the role design professionals and educators play in planning and design. Can a building be transplanted from one culture to another and be meaningful? Can architectural innovation be duplicated? Is our educational system preparing design students for the changing landscape of contemporary culture? This paper explores the question of duplicity in architecture and proposes diversity as a viable alternative. Duplicity is used here not in the sense of its modern English meaning of deceitfulness or doubledealing--although this definition may poetically apply--but rather in its root meaning of doubleness. Duplicity itself is at least double; it is the state or quality of being numerically doubled. The paper speculates on three possible explanations of why we are seeing such duplicity, repetition, and uniformity in architecture. The first explanation relates to a technological disposition where duplicity in architecture is justified through the premise that what works well in one place will work equally well in another. Here the replication of function and technology limits innovation at one level while insuring some preconceived definition of success at another. A second explanation pertains to economics and perhaps more directly toward corporate profit. Standardization of program, form, and materials reduces (or even eliminates) time required for planning and design as well as shortens the period during which interest, or cost, on money is necessary without a profit return on that same money. The third expiation is derived from image and identity that manifests itself at both institutional and individual levels. At the institutional level, the corporation has become a primary player in the production of culture which not only creates and produces cultural messages but extends its dominance by replicating its corporate image in each landscape within which it is found--irrespective of cultural context. At the individual level, this issue of dominance, for all practical purposes, does not exist. The individual is more interested in being identified with and fitting into a preconceived notion of what is acceptable, and replication of current sylistc and fashionable conformity--as portrayed by news and information media--insures this identity.The concept of diversity, by definition, is antithetical to duplicity; it pertains to difference and variety. As defined here, diversity expands the range of response thereby accommodating adaptation to change over time. Here, architectural sameness through duplicity cannot be considered a viable option, and commonality primarily exists in the invisible structure of culture. An architecture of diversity is one which responds to and becomes an extension of its physical as well as cultural contexts. It pertains to what is meaning and identifiable--a person, a place, a thing and the unique quality that makes a thing what it is.The paper argues for an architecture that acknowledges both the commonality and differences within and among cultures. It argues for the production of an architecture that goes beyond commodity and consumer imagery and challenges our educational system to distinguish one thing from another.