As expected, the plans brought about a mixture of positive and negative comments, as each and every idea was dissected in the same way that the Maltese discuss each and every aspect that concerns them – with blinkered prejudice.

Actually, I was surprised that there were more people who spoke in favour than against. Before the plans were revealed, I thought that there would have been more dissent. It seems that we are getting somewhere, finally.

A few weeks ago, I wrote an article in this newspaper in which I took excerpts of comments made by international experts – real ones, this time – on Renzo Piano’s design for the Modern Wing of Chicago’s Art Institute. I specifically called the piece “Acclaimed by the world, shunned by Malta” to point out that while the Italian master was receiving praise from one and all elsewhere, for whatever he did, here in Malta we had rejected the plans he made 20 years ago, only to realise our mistake and go back to him for fresh ideas on the same project.

The government did the right thing when it approached Renzo Piano to do the job. It wants the best for Valletta, a capital city that has been neglected for far too long and which needs a deserved shake-up, so it went for the best architect. Something as big as the City Gate project is not one that should be put up for a design competition, whatever Maltese architects say.

I am not an expert and I am not presumptuous enough to give my comments on the designs as if I am one – as others have done. What I will say, as an amateur, is that I like most of what he proposed and that I have my full trust in the man, believing that what he has suggested will give Valletta the City Gate (opera house site included) it has longed for since the end of the Second World War.

After all, it is a matter of taste. What pleased me could have displeased others, and the other way round, but there is no way that I could ever challenge Renzo Piano’s conception of what Valletta’s entrance should be like. Who am I to do so?

As someone said, the plans for Valletta should not be a matter of democratic consent. This is not something for the man-in-the-street to decide on, especially if he or she does not know the difference between “then” and “than”, or “where” and “were”, as was the case in some comments on The Times’ blog. If they can’t write basic English, they should not even think of having an opinion, let alone express it in such a way as if they were someone with something important to say.

I am sure that someone with the credentials Renzo Piano has knows what he is doing, and knows what needs to be done to transform Valletta into the jewel it once was. Those know-alls who delivered their attacks because they happen to be people who criticise just about everything under the sun – except themselves – should accept this as a matter of fact.

* * *

And now to Astrid Vella.

Can someone please answer a few questions about her?

Does she live in a cave, far from the civilised world, without electricity or running water? Or maybe in a tent in some remote field, sleeping on the ground? Has she ever been in a car? Does she have a mobile phone?

I respect the rules of privacy, but in her case I feel these questions are pertinent, considering that she seems to have an opinion about just everything connected with environment matters. When she gives it, her opinion is always against any form of development, whatever this may be.

And this is why I would like to know whether she lives in a house with all the amenities ordinary people have and whether she makes use of modern facilities such as cars and mobile phones, all of which, in some form or another, do cause harm to the environment.

If she does have a house, did somebody ever tell her that it is built on what could have been an “outside development zone”, had it not been built, that is? What is good for her is not good for others?

By the way, why didn’t she say anything about the designs for the new Valletta? Does she keep her mouth shut when she is in agreement?

[email protected]