I agree with Long, Staubio, and Moderne. Â While it is not my cup of tea, the building does represent an era of architecture. Â Many buildings cause disagreement. Â When the Eiffel Tower was constructed, many thought it was ugly. Â When the World Trade Towers were constructed, many thought they were banal. However, like the Eiffel Tower in Paris, the twin towers became an icon of New York City. Â Many thought the architecture itself wasn't too inspiring, but the sheer mass of the buildings was. Â The NY skyline seems lost without them.
The other consideration for me anyway is that there is nothing physically wrong with the building. It's functional, utilitarian, and in use. Â It doesn't make a lot of sense to me to tear it down, and add more rubble to landfill. Â Taxpayers had to pay to build it in the first place, and now taxpayers are paying to have it torn down so that taxpayers can pay to have another building constructed in its place.
I'm also in agreement that an attempt should have been made to design an entertainment district around the existing buildings. Â There were two or three buildings along Grand next to the basketball building that were in good condition. Â Many of the retail buildings that will replace them are not any larger than they were--two stories. Â In a couple of instances, the buildings were on the edge of the block, so it wouldn't have been difficult to build around them. Â Older buildings can be successfully incorporated into larger developments -- the Boley Building comes to mind. Â Just because a newer version of a former style is constructed doesn't make it bad either. All through history recreations of architectural styles have been done. Nothing is stopping the architect from reinterpreting the style in an interesting way. Â There are other ways to mix buildings -- using the same material for example: red brick. Â Quality Hill is a mixture of old and new, with single older buildings surrounded by newer ones. The newer buildings aren't made to look exactly like their older neighbors, but they are complementary and use the same materials. So there is continuity.
Mixing styles and periods is not necessarily a bad thing either. Â Most downtowns exist in that manner anyway. Sometimes it creates tension, which is urban by its very nature. It's what makes cities exciting, and separates them from blander suburban retail strips. Â In the life of a city, buildings are built and torn down. Â The replacements may not be similar to its neighbor.
The Law Building, while it may have been a box with a little applied ornamentation, had a different look than most downtown buildings. Â There wasn't another building remotely like it in appearance.
Yes, to some extent, we are beating a dead horse here, because the buildings are gone. However, it doesn't mean that we can't cite it as example of bad development, bad ecology, or sheer stupidity. Â These are lessons. What's regretable is that urban rebirth in many cities has demonstrated that this is the wrong approach. Â Slash and burn is not the best way to go. Â Many urban planners are saying now that it's better to keep the older buildings because it adds character and interest to downtowns. It demonstrates a respect for the past.
While many of the older buildings may have been generic for their time, the fact that they remained made them less generic because they had the patina of age, and a history.  Not every building is an architectural statement and is not built to be.  Sometimes the built environment is constructed because it's familiar and addresses underlying preferences for styles of construction, materials used, and the physical environment where it exists. Some cities prefer traditional brick structures. Others stucco or adobe.  It's all good. Â
There is no fifth destination.
