Comments on the Renzo Piano project were expected and desirable. After all, once implemented it is likely to change the face of the entrance to Valletta forever - or at least for as long as many of us will spend on this earth. And the last time someone made an alteration to City Gate it was to create an abomination which potential bombers could have been forgiven for thinking had already been destroyed.
If there is one thing everyone agrees upon, it is that there is need for change. The area which currently houses the bus terminus - recently added to the project - is dirty and dilapidated, the gate is garish, Freedom Square is an oil-soiled car park, and the ruins of the old opera house resemble a ghetto. So if the government got one decision right, it was the biggest one of all: that something needed to be done.
It also made the right decision in engaging Mr Piano to design and oversee the project. Valletta, at least the section that requires change, deserves to bear the stamp of such an innovative architect - particularly when he is working in close collaboration with, and when necessary under the direction of, the Maltese.
Did the government, however, make the right decision when it decided to go for a parliament building rather than, as is by far the most popular of the mooted alternatives, some kind of national theatre? There have been some calm and sensible arguments to suggest that it did not. And our politicians will find it hard to escape from the perception that they are doing something for themselves rather than for the nation.
The mistake several people are making, however - and this includes the 128 artists who signed a petition, as well as the utterly ridiculous proposal by Mario Philip Azzopardi for 100,000 members of the public to pay 33 cents a day for the next five years - is to connect the cause that the parliament building be replaced by a theatre with the issue of the old opera house having a roof.
In the case of the former, it is the government that has been the driving force. In fact, the original brief to Piano's team failed to even contemplate any kind of theatre. In other words, the Italian architect's say has only been in relation to design, not on the purpose of the building; although his opinion is that theatre facilities would take up too much space in that area and obscure the entrance.
In the case of the latter, Piano's team have come to the conclusion that the best solution is to have an open air theatre, because, they say, this will give a sense of space to the project and retain the character of the old ruins. It is a misconception that the site can become an indoor venue by simply adding a roof. For this to happen it must be built from scratch, with thick walls and acoustics to match.
The fireworks issue aside, open air in a country like ours has many advantages, not least cost. And if one of the world's leading architects is of the opinion that if Malta is to have a theatre it should be located elsewhere - he has some experience, since he is building one in Athens on a site six times the size of the opera house site - then who are we to argue?