Visitors from relatively young countries often expect attractions designed and built expressly for tourism rather than historic sites with original functions. European castles, cathedrals, and grand houses were constructed for defence, worship, and residence, not for sightseeing. Over time some buildings lost their original uses or owners opened them to visitors for income, turning functional heritage into tourist venues. Expectations shaped by entertainment-driven attractions in other countries lead some visitors to seek non-touristy experiences, missing that much European heritage exists primarily because of its past practical roles rather than as purpose-built amusements.
I used to think that, and you sometimes see variants of that question on forums, sometimes with replies along the lines of "squash onto a tube train at 8am, spend an hour with your nose in someone's armpit, sit in an office for eight hours, and then go home to an overpriced flat shared with two of your worst enemies and sleep. Repeat tomorrow".
It's usually a request from people who are coming from fairly young countries without much in the way of heritage. Oh, ok, let's admit it, they're Americans. And I realised some years ago that for Americans, away from their remarkable natural parks, most tourist venues have been built for tourists. They are entertainments designed to lure in the visitors and provide them with some fun or excitement in exchange for a fistful of dollars.
Collection
[
|
...
]