Renzo Piano's scheme has the merit of emphasising the cultural importance of the site and its power to draw people to Valletta to enliven city life. It is a pity he has failed to go the whole hog and to incorporate the shell of the old opera house. It would have not only achieved a wider consent but would also have been an effective foil to his elegantly poised and unadorned Parliament.

It is convenient to dismiss the people's wish of having the old theatre rebuilt as a mere romantic or sentimentalist whim. Or is it as Blaise Pascal once said, a question of "the heart having its own reason which reason does not know". After all, it is a universal sentiment, for many countries which have had their old opera houses destroyed have had them rebuilt as they were. The latest one is La Fenice in Venice.

It is also not quite exact for critics to say that Barry's choice of classical style was not appropriate in the Valletta context. Léon Krier, who is also an architect of world renown and calibre, confirms that the "genius of classical architecture is so pervasive that even the revivals of revivals will be graced with its advantage".

The most important reason that militates against the idea of having an open air theatre is that it may generate a permanent state of disorder in the streets around the theatre not much different from that which takes place during carnival time. It is then that any bright ideas the designer may have had are forgotten and accretions such as scaffolding, seating, lighting, banners, etc., become permanent eyesores. One also hopes that it will not become a venue for disco-like manifestations!