This ideal that classicism is not always traditional seems to be popping up more and more.  I think that, as Gregory says, the definition of the words do tend to shift from person to person.  To help alleviate this I will define Classicism as architecture that has been rooted in the ideals of the orders (Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian) found in most architecture extending through the Roman Empire.  These ideals include proportion, building technique, and ornamentation.  Traditional architecture I will define as architecture that has a significant history in a specific area or setting. 

According to this definition of traditional architecture one could gather that geographical region will only have one appropriate traditional type.  This is not the case.  The correct understanding of traditional architecture is that even though a building type may have a strong history in a region, it is more important to understand the building’s history in a specific setting.  For example, temple fronts compose the main façades of countless monumental buildings across the globe, even though temples of this nature originally have a history only in ancient Rome; it is the history as a monumental building that allow it to be appropriate for use in other regions.

Now that traditional and classical architecture can be defined, it is possible to look at whether they are one in the same or are they able to exist separately.  And to this I say that they are definitely able to exist separate of each other.  Classical architecture is based up the ideals set down through the orders.  This understanding, while it may happen to be traditional at some times does not necessarily have to be.  A building may have classical proportions and details, but it may not appropriately fit into the tradition of the area or situation.  Furthermore, the building could be made of very modern material which would remove it from a traditional ideal.  An example of this situation is this office building designed by Demetri Porphyrios found at One Forbury Square which has been praised as having “a distinct contemporary classical character.”

The opposite is also possible; some traditional buildings are not classical.  This is most readily found in foreign countries, specifically in eastern cultures.  The traditional architecture in many eastern cultures has developed from a separate history.  In many situations classical designs would not fit at all.  However, this also occurs here in the United States.  In many parts of the United States there is a tradition of building techniques which have created an appropriate type of building that does not follow classical ideals.  One very strong example is the tradition of solid timber construction.  In many parts of the country this building type has been used to create homes, recreational, and public buildings.  Each of these buildings has their own character, and they appropriately fit the building needs and requirements.

Classical architecture and traditional architecture are very similar, but they do have very significant differences, and can exist independent of each other.  Classical architecture is set apart from its one requirement of following along the ideals found in the orders.