Hongkongers have spoken, and the government - for a refreshing change - has shown that it is willing to listen. The announcement by Chief Secretary Rafael Hui Si-yan this month that the government was abolishing the single-developer approach to the West Kowloon Cultural District project was both welcome and heartening.
Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen's team is to be warmly congratulated for modifying the project and setting up an independent West Kowloon authority to take it forward. It shows that they have been prepared to hear what the people of Hong Kong say, and act on it - and that is enormously encouraging.
Now that we have Mr Tsang's ear, I would like to draw his attention to three matters concerning West Kowloon that require more views to be taken on board.
First, under the revised project, the government will require the winning developer to set aside at least 50 per cent of the commercial and residential gross floor area for other developers to bid on.
This raises one obvious question: which 50 per cent? If the winning developer can choose, it will have an unjustifiable advantage.
What if the winning developer chooses to keep all the sea-view sites for itself, and release only the less valuable properties to rival developers? What if it holds onto the land when the market is on an upward swing, and only releases it when the market is falling?
When I raised these questions with Michael Suen Ming-yeung, secretary for housing, planning and lands, he assured me that the government would take a leading role in the process of dividing up the land.
That is reassuring - but this leading role must be clearly defined so the winning developer cannot exploit its role. I think the government should set aside half the land for the winning developer and put the other half up for auction.
Second, the government will require the winning developer to pay $30 billion into a trust fund to pay for operating expenses. It has been suggested that this fund would be managed by the authority set up to handle the project.
While the concept is sound, I do not believe the money is necessarily being put in the right hands. The main function of the proposed authority is to deal with cultural development, and its members should not be expected to be experts in financial management.
The fund should instead be transferred to the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, which has the expertise and a proven track record in financial management of this kind.
Finally, there remains the question of the canopy. This will cost billions of dollars to build and tens of millions of dollars a year to maintain. These are not sums to be sniffed at, and if the government is to press ahead with this model, it must be certain that it is a cost worth bearing. This is a question that must be weighed with the greatest care.
It may be that the canopy will be an inspiring addition to our skyline and it may add immensely to Hong Kong's appeal as a tourist destination.
However, the canopy is a massive undertaking and long-term financial commitment, and it is already clear that there is a divergence of views within the community on whether or not we need it and whether we can afford it.
Even if we turn a blind eye to the financial considerations, there is still uncertainty over the feasibility of building and maintaining it.
I hope Mr Tsang and his team will listen closely to these divergent views before making a final decision on whether or not to proceed.
James Tien Pei-chun is chairman of the Liberal Party