It´s also question of cost refurbishing old buildings is often way more expensive than building a new one. The new building can be build for less or the same money but with all of the needs of a modern football club while the old building comes with sacrifices due to the buildings layout and original buildings needs of the period it was built.Such phrases - ditto "soulless bowls" - are just empty clichés trotted out by those who wish to justify having an old, rectangular stadium.
There is nothing intrinsically "bland" about a bowl-shape anymore than there is about a rectangular shape.
And references in other posts to a lack of "soul" are merely disguised references to newness (i.e. insufficient time for much history to have developed). By virtue of being mostly built on the same site as White Hart Lane, does Spurs new stadium have more "soul" than it otherwise would?
It's all very well talking about a stadium's history as a reason to stick with it, but the more time that passes, the longer that history becomes - and with it an even bigger alleged reason to stay - whilst at the same time the stadium becomes ever older and crumblier. When does the latter factor outweigh the former?
And when does the cumulative patching up and improving as best you can within the limitations of an old-fashioned design become more costly than building a new stadium from scratch?
A new modern stadium would benefit most fans and players for years to come but soul and feelings play a huge part in the process, the Glazers will get slaughtered if they even mention building a new stadium and tearing down Old Trafford, tradition, soul ect ect..