In the class discussion on September 24th, 2015, we examined and compared the attitude and emotions that arose with the emergence of high modernism; among these were the ideals of social and economic efficiency for modern cities and communities in the twenty-first century. At the same time we discussed the differences between the newly emerging utopian city designs during the mid/late 1800’s. I could not help but notice how this reminded me of the buildings and streets I’d seen and marveled during my trip this summer to Europe. What really set the city’s in Europe apart from each other was that a number of the these were designed to represent the national culture and style of the nation and its past monarchies; this was evident in the structure of Charles Castle and Charles Bridge (Karlov Most) in the heart of Prague. While the beauty and emotional mood of the city was breath taking, it was evident that the medieval designs did not take into account the long term efficiency for expanding markets or trade with the international community – save for tourism and historical research. In addition, a number of smaller villages and communities throughout central Europe, such as the small a town of Spreewald (between Dresden and Berlin) still rely on small motor boats and light barges for transportation and resupply throughout the vast system of canals and island homes/businesses. However, upon further recollection of my travels through central Europe, the cities and businesses that emerged during the Reformation period were based on the concept of combining modernist design and efficiency with national artistic style and form. From the large cobble stone streets to the large open city central courts and parks, these cities were clearly designed to provide easy access to local/traveling market merchants and business dealers. I myself found these roadways and courts to be quite open and efficient for tourists and local shops in spite of the medieval designs and styles of the buildings and bridges/roadways.