Tottenham Hotspur have been in an interesting position when it comes to their new stadium.
On one hand, you had critics vehemently decrying the astronomical expenditure. One source pegged it at a full billion pounds.
The extravagance in construction was clear, as many modern stadiums are built at far less of a cost, in comparison.
You also had many fans not happy over the prospect of leaving the iconic White Hart Lane. Symbolic of everything Tottenham, the stadium had been Spurs’ home for 85 years and was the site of their many triumphs.
However, in the end, past all of that undue fuss, it is safe to say the move worked out. Quite spectacularly, at that.
After opening in April last year, the Spurs’ stadium has been a massive success with the public, with fans dazzled by its myriad novelties. It has even achieved widespread critical acclaim, winning second place in the Stadium of The Year awards.
It is hard to argue that the honour isn’t well deserved.
An architectural wonder
With a seating capacity of 62,000, the stadium is astonishingly well-built, all of these seats arranged perfectly in a bowl-like fashion. Standing tall at 48m, the stadium has an average diameter of about 220m.
The steel beams and the outer facade are ingeniously built as to allow natural ventilation and sunlight for the grass. A giant cockerel placed on the roof, indicating the team crest, tops off the design.
The crowning glory of the stadium, however, has to be the retractable pitch. The field is mounted on three enormous trays and can be rolled off at any time. This helps protect it from the elements as well as be capable of hosting multiple events like the NFL.
Simply put, Spurs supporters can now legitimately claim of having the best arena in the country by a massive margin.
A distinct difference
However, there seemed to be no real world way of putting that claim into context. That was until yesterday, when Twitter user @CiaransTweets put out a photo comparing West Ham’s stadium to new Spurs stadium.
The photo illustrates the view a person has of the football pitch from Rows 54 and 47 in the respective arenas. And the difference could not be more stark.
Selling my old phone so I'm moving all my pictures onto my computer and I found this:
With the seats being more vertically aligned, the view of the field at Spurs’ arena seems to be miles ahead. The ground seems to be much closer and clearer to the viewer in comparison with the Hammers’ London Stadium.
In response to one comment, the user claimed that the same camera took both photos at the same angle.
Both pictures are using the same phone and the same settings
