Yet the Proprietor Committee, which selected French architect Paul Andreu's proposal from the final three as one to be submitted for approval, has been silent since the controversy erupted, except for refuting a media report that the project had been suspended.

Based on the two petitions, of which China Daily obtained copies, and interviews with those for and against the proposal, here are key points of the debate:

Cost

A couple of figures were released, but a more precise figure will emerge once details of the project are determined.

Andreu's original proposal had a price tag of 1.4 billion yuan (US$168 million) for a construction area of 120,000 square meters, but the proposal chosen by the Proprietor Committee last year was amended with the cost at 4.7 billion yuan (US$566 million) for a construction area of 250,000 square meters.

The cost for a proposed 6,200-seat theatre was 758,000 yuan (US$91,300) per seat, equivalent to the cost of an imported Mercedes Benz sedan plus high tariffs, said a Chinese architect who participated in the bidding.

At the request of the Proprietor Committee, Andreu revised his proposal recently and was believed to have reduced both the scope and cost of the proposal.

He was quoted by Hong Kong media last month as saying that he has managed to cut costs by approximately 25 per cent so that the project's price tag is now around 3 billion yuan (US$361 million).

However, a Proprietor Committee member said the project's cost will not exceed 2.6 billion yuan (US$313 million).

Both sides agree the total cost will be hefty, even the maintenance fees after the theatre is built.

For those who are less concerned about the large sum that will be spent on the project, they argue the theatre will be a symbol of national pride. "It is not designed to be ordinary in the first place,” said one involved in the feasibility study. "It is to be a landmark in Beijing. You cannot simply compare its cost with an ordinary theatre.”

It is also suggested that the cost is not for a theatre but for a "theatre complex” that provides facilities and a large area for relaxing and strolling.

Those against the project argue that there are enough theatres in Beijing. A new one is not needed now, let alone a large structure with four big halls. "We do not object to the construction of national theatre, but we do think the project should be put off for the time being,” said He Zuoxiu, a physicist and one draftsman of one of the petitions, "A consensus should be reached on when the theatre will be built and at what cost.”

Some who signed the petition also worry that the huge spending on the theatre would mean expensive tickets out of the reach of ordinary residents.

"It is totally an unnecessary waste of money,” said Chinese-Canadian architect Alfred Peng, who has been teaching at Tsinghua University for 18 years.

Design

There is disagreement on the form and function of Andreu's design.

The criticism centers on the gigantic titanium dome -- 218 meters in span, 45 meters high and 3 meters thick -- nestled in an artificial lake.

Proponents likened it to a water pearl. Opponents call it a blob, even a ball of manure.

All, however, agree that the dome makes the project more costly and more difficult to build.

Opponents say it is silly to overemphasize the form at the expense of function. The entrance is to be built underground to enhance the dome's visual impact.

To have the four major halls in the dome means much digging underground. "It is like people creating a big yet unnecessary problem for themselves and then spend time and money to solve it,” said Liu Xiaoshi, the former chief architect of the Beijing's Municipal Planning Bureau.

Both petitions accuse Andreu of ignoring the dusty winds typical of Beijing's spring and winter, which would make the dome a dust-covered ball.

Therefore, cleaning the dome's surface would be expensive and possibly impossible.

Andreu and the Proprietor Committee see the dome as the centerpiece of his proposal.

Zhou Qinglin, a member of the selection committee, said there should be no problem cleaning the dome since there are manual and mechanical ways to do so.

One petition cited an expert on stage technology, Li Chang, as saying that even under Andreu's revised design, the theatre won't function well.

"In terms of function, it is still second rate or even worse,” the petition quotes Li as saying.

Wang Weiyu, a professor in the Architecture Department of Tsinghua University who has experience of designing theatres, said the structure would inconvenience backstage work.

But acoustics would not be a problem, she said. "By using the right designs and materials, the acoustics can be guaranteed,” she said.

Esthetics of Style

Both sides deny that theatre controversy is simply a conflict over architectural style.

Modern or traditional? Western or Chinese? Neither?

Is it a perfect blending of two architectural traditions? The two sides are sharply divided.

Critics describe the theatre's style as an arrogant and ignorant offence against the norms of Chinese architecture. "Andreu has no idea of Chinese culture,” said Alfred Peng. "His proposal is extremely incongruous with the surroundings.”

What Andreu did was not new, but something outdated that has been abandoned by the mainstream of Western architects, he said.

Even by Western architectural standards, the proposal is a flop, he asserted.

The Proprietor Committee, however, praises Andreu's concern with the theatre's surroundings, saying the design enhances the environment around Tian'anmen Square, which is dominated by granite architecture.

The dome, half underground, makes the square look less aggressive and compliments the Great Hall of the People, panel members say.

In an article in Architecture Journal, Zhou Qinglin wrote that Andreu's proposal is "very distinctive, creative that breaks the norm of average thinking.”

He added: "It would bring great influence to China's architecture creation.”

(China Daily)