Well, I believe it’s necessary, because landmarks represent the culture and history of the country. I’m more than sure that if people go to Paris and don’t see the Eiffel Tower, they miss an important part of what makes the city unique. Landmarks are usually connected with the identity of the place, so visiting them helps tourists understand the story behind it. Another reason is that famous sites give a sense of achievement, like ticking something off a travel list. Many people dream about seeing the Colosseum or the Great Wall of China, and once they finally do, it feels like a goal has been reached. Of course, not everyone is into sightseeing, but I think landmarks are still an essential part of travelling. They make the experience more complete.

Well, in my opinion, landmarks are not always necessary, because they are usually overcrowded and not very enjoyable. If people visit a popular site and have to wait in a huge line, it doesn’t feel relaxing or special at all. Another point is that experiencing local life and traditions can be more authentic than visiting a landmark. To my mind, talking to local people, trying their food, or exploring small streets may give tourists a better picture of the culture than just taking a photo in front of a monument. Some travellers also feel that landmarks are too commercial, while everyday experiences are more real. That’s why I think it’s not necessary for everyone to visit landmarks… It depends on personal preferences.