Why are football stadiums all starting to look the same?
The world of football stadiums is filled with history, character, charm, and some incredible architecture.
Many of them are instantly recognisable or have unique features - like the tower and neoclassical colonnade of the Stadio Renato Dall'Ara in Bologna.
Or the Estadio Alberto J. Armando in Buenos Aires, better known as La Bombonera, meaning "Chocolate Box" in reference to its unusual shape and single flat stand.
And then there's El Monumental in Lima, with those striking tiers of viewing boxes above the regular stands.
Sometimes it's a particular feature which stands out, like the twin towers of Old Wembley in London (now demolished), the deep moat of the Stadio Diego Maradona in Naples, or the decorative facades of Highbury (now demolished) in London and Villa Park in Birmingham.
It could even be a shadow, like the famous "spider" on the pitch at the 1986 World Cup in Mexico, or the road that ran beneath Atlético Madrid's former stadium, the Vicente Calderón.
Every old stadium seemed to have its own idiosyncracies.
Then there's something like the Allianz Arena in Munich.
Though similar to many other modern stadiums in some ways, its exterior - which can light up in a variety of colours - makes it something special.
The list of instantly recognisable football stadiums could go on.
But, as old stadiums are renovated and new ones are built all around the world, it can feel like those unique characteristics are disappearing and they are becoming much more similar, even indistinguishable.
But stadiums have looked the same for most of history; it's just that trends were national or regional rather than global.
Like the grounds of northern Europe with their low roofs, boxy geometry, and (usually) separated stands.
Or in southern Europe, where the weather is better, stadiums with connected stands and a roof over only one side.
And the greater circular stadiums of South America:
It's in the last twenty years that this has started to change.
As money has poured into football like never before, a whole new era of stadium-building has dawned, one in which the increasingly global game has seen homogenising architectural trends, dominated by the same firms.
It was inevitable that the old stadiums, built from crumbling concrete and rusting girders, would be replaced.
Some of the earliest truly modern stadiums were the Estádio da Luz in Lisbon and the Emirates Stadium in London, built in 2003 and 2006 by the same architectural firm.
They were both trend-setters, not least because they represented the first step towards a global style.
And international fashion has continued to dominate - here are four stadiums from the last four World Cups, which took place in South Africa, Brazil, Russia, and Qatar.
Of course, renovations and new stadiums are important. Income from ticket sales is vital and better facilities for players, staff, fans, and broadcasters are only a good thing.
And many old stadiums, however great their charm and history, are falling to pieces.
But it seems as though something is being lost in this process, whereby the world's many recognisable stadiums are fading into a crowd of standard global models.
Barcelona's Camp Nou, famous for its asymmetrical shape, is soon to be renovated in keeping with the current fashion.
And the legendary San Siro in Milan has been singled out for demolition.
Set to be replaced with a stadium designed by the same firm behind the Estadio da Luz, the Emirates Stadium, and the new Tottenham Hotspur Stadium.
Not all new stadiums look the same, of course, but it's clear is that a new era has arrived, one in which global rather than local trends dominate.
And, despite their benefits, these high-tech stadiums have relinquished some of the charm and character of their predecessors.
Then again, every old stadium was once brand new, and people must have thought the same things about them.
Like the San Siro, seen here in 1956 before many of its current features were added.
All these new stadiums will one day be demolished - and probably missed, too.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
When Vincent van Gogh started painting he didn't use any bright colours — so what happened?
It isn't just about art.
This is a story about how we're all changed by the things we consume, the places we go, and the people we choose to spend time with...
The year is 1881.
A 27 year old former teacher and missionary from the Netherlands called Vincent van Gogh decides to try and become a full-time artist, after being encouraged by his brother Theo.
What does he paint? The peasants of the countryside where his parents lived.
Vincent van Gogh's early work is unrecognisably different from the vibrant painter now beloved around the world.
Why?
Many reasons, though one of the most important is that he had been influenced by his cousin, the Realist painter Anton Mauve, who painted like this:
He rose from obscurity, joined a revolution, became an emperor, tried to conquer Europe, failed, spent his last days in exile — and changed the world forever.
This is the life of Napoleon, told in 19 paintings:
1. Bonaparte at the Pont d'Arcole by Antoine-Jean Gros (1796)
Napoleon's life during the French Revolution was complicated, but by the age of 24 he was already a General.
Here, aged just 27, he led the armies of the French Republic to victory in Italy — his star was rising.
2. The Battle of the Pyramids by François-Louis-Joseph Watteau (1799)
Two years later Napoleon oversaw the invasion of Egypt as part of an attempt to undermine British trade.
At the Battle of the Pyramids he led the French to a crushing victory over the Ottomans and Mamluks.