A city or even country’s identity can be heavily influenced by its architecture, since it is a very visible part of the place. For example, traditional architecture may lead to cultural tourism, more modern architecture may be important for investments by companies operating in fields of modern technology. Architecture reflects the community’s culture, through religious buildings, its reflection of history, houses which are adapted to local climatic an geographic circumstances. Culture is the most unique place brand identifier. A unique place brand identity is a competitive advantage for branding purposes. Thailand has a long history and strong cultural heritage. Nevertheless, even though this could form a basis or the roots for contemporary architecture, its contemporary identity has been very difficult to define. This has resulted in the current branding efforts relying mostly on traditional architecture, which has made it even more difficult to define its own more modern identity. This paper discusses the current status of Thai architecture’s identity, how history has impacted it, and its problems in defining a contemporary architectural identity, in part caused by Thai culture’s willingness to accept, integrate, and adapt to foreign cultures. It discusses the traditional elements, its symbolic meanings, its adaptability, and how they could potentially be used to define a common contemporary identity. This paper discusses part of the research done for my PhD thesis at the Faculty of Architecture of Silpakorn University, titled Nation Brand Strategies: National Identity, Architecture, and Cultural Heritage Value: A case study of the Thai Pavilion at the World Expos. The thesis included the evaluation of the branding strategies used at World Expositions over history, and the role of architecture in this process. One potential gap discussed was the continued usage of traditional elements of Thai architecture in such World Expositions, without much use of contemporary architecture, in part because contemporary Thai architectural identity was so hard to define. One of the main conclusions suggested to close this gap was to use the symbolic elements of the traditional architecture, but not the physical elements. The methodology used for the research included literature review, comparative case studies, studying national archival material, and interviews with experts in the fields of architecture, tourism, and branding of Thailand.