There appear to be two options with two differing and opposing philosophical approaches to the rebuilding of City Gate and the Opera House. The first is the one proposed by the government. Do not restore. Give it to Renzo Piano to produce a contemporary bravura (albeit now incorporating the old bridge).

We have already been down this road of modernism with the Zavellani-Rossi/Bergonzo gate of the 1960s. It was an abject failure. It would be folly to go down this road again. Piano's plans of 20 years ago demonstrated that, renowned as he is, he failed to capture the essence of what the main gate to a unique fortified Baroque city should look like. He produced a wide entrance, not a gate, totally out of keeping and unsympathetic to the surrounding fortifications. It would be a misnomer to call his effort a gate. His proposal would have looked more at home as the entrance to some reconstructed Egyptian temple in Disneyland.

But what I find most damning about Piano's plans is what the eminent architect Richard England is reported to have said: "It was unlikely that Prof. Piano would fish out old plans from his shelves," he said, expecting him to go back to the drawing board and present fresh designs for City Gate.

This means that Piano's plans of 20 years ago are now outdated and that, had his 'gate' been implemented, it would now already have been effete and passé. Not to mention the destruction of the bridge. Not to mention the huge sum of money that would have gone down the drain just to be lumped with an inappropriate contemporary solution. And what if his 'fresh' designs are now implemented? Might they not also soon turn sour, just as the Bergonzo gate did?

The second option is restoration, on which there are two schools of thought. One is to restore the work of art or architecture (the fortifications) as faithfully as possible to the original. The other is to restore in a way that the intervention will be visible for what it is, but - and this is the important point - that it be harmonious, sympathetic and in keeping with the work of art.

Both options are acceptable. Principally because the gate is but a tiny part of the whole ring of fortifications, I would suggest that restoration of the Valletta fortifications is the natural option to go for.

What kind of restorative intervention should be applied is open to discussion. Should we reinstate the Knights' definitive 1630s Porta San Giorgio of our illustrious compatriot or go for another design which likewise would respect the fortifications and the place and memory of this gate (which Piano's plans clearly did not - though, who knows, they might this time round)?

A fundamental principle of restoration is that every effort must be made to preserve as much as possible of the original. Now that finally and thankfully it is given that the 1630s bridge is to be preserved and incorporated in the plan, it seems only natural that it should be reunited with its gate.

This gate stood the test of time till the 1850s and there is no reason why it should not again. Nor should it be an extraordinary undertaking. An architect has assured me that re-exposing the bridge will provide little difficulty, and there are countless depictions of Dingli's bridge available (such as by Giorgio Pullicino in the early 1800s) on which to base the restoration. Money need not be squandered on an extravagant foreign architect's fees and other expenses.

The bottom line is that the Opera House site and City Gate are separate and distinct sites that require separate solutions. Our fortifications are for restoration and not for the capricious insertion of some extravagant contemporary discordant bravura that will quickly outlive its sell-by date and require rectification in 20 years time. Let's not make the same mistake as our predecessors of the 1960s.