Between our visits to the five core buildings, we interwove a significant collection of other European architecture—not just industrial factories. These buildings both supplemented our study of the target sites, as well as filled in blanks and flushed out our understanding of the history of architecture in Europe. Smaller structures, while less poignant in comparison to Kahn, still left an indelible mark on us, and helped inform our overarching understanding of the core buildings through recognition of influence and building “intertextuality.” Buildings like the Bauhaus, which express factory language, helped position Kahn in relation to European architects and to think about his “form follows function” comment: “a building must express its purpose and look like what it is” (Bucci). Kahn believed that if every building took on the factory aesthetic the fabric of architecture in a given place would become monotonous but we now know that in Europe, this is not the case at all. We saw iconic structures from the Rietveld Schroeder House in the Netherlands which expresses ideals of the modernist movement, to Kahn buildings on the University of Michigan campus which instead, reveal clear social past precedents (Angell Hall, an educational institution, draws on classic orders). Much to our surprise and delight, at the same time we performed a study of European factories and Kahn, we experienced a sort of crash-course in European architecture. These collateral sites we visited hold significant weight (whether directly mentioned or not) within our “Findings” projects, and have equipped us with a keen awareness that will be invaluable to our future architectural studies.