Tbf, Spurs stadium is on a different level in most respects. Yes, the obvious ones are it is bigger and has much greater flexibility to host more none-football, high-revenue events. It has over-lapping tiers on 3 sides bringing people closer to the action (and their opposite sides) generally, increasing that intensity, and offering a broader range of viewing angles. The corporate areas are all in their own dedicated tiers offering greater exclusivity and higher-income value. They have 80 boxes over several levels compared to our 20/22, and no corporates are exposed to the weather. Their South stand is significantly larger than our new home end and its safe-standing blends far more seamlessly with the seated area behind, to look more like a traditional single-tier. There is more concourse space generally over many more floors, with proportionately far more toilets too.
Subjectively, yes, BMD beats it for location and external aesthetics, but those factors don't really influence stadium performance imo. Internally it is far more basic and utilitarian, some might say generic, with the bulk of the design effort/quality appearing to have gone on the external appeal and site heritage.
That said, sometimes, less is more, and simplicity, if perfectly-formed is indeed better. Spurs is more corporate centric and wins that aspect hands down, ours may have greater unity, economy and traditional feel.
