First off, this is a terrible. I want to say that up front.
But delving deeper - and ignoring what this lot will become - does this building deserve protection? How much does the fact that it will be replaced by vacant lot factor into your thinking?
More importantly, how can the city balance preservation? Blanketly protecting all old buildings is not advisable b/c then what happens when an old, but otherwise unremarkable building stands in the way of a high rise (and all of its benefits, e.g., more density, added tax revenue, maybe an improved pedestrian experience, etc.), like for example Rindlaub's Row making way for 10 Ritt? On the flipside, what happens when old, but otherwise unremarkable buildings are torn down for dreck (like those buildings on
Chestnut Street in Univ City or the former
Please Touch Museum) or to simply lay fallow, like in this sad case?
Ideally, you only want to lose older buildings if you're going to get something better. But who decides that? People have very different views on this.
Would the SOS people been less litigious if 10 Ritt was planned as only 5 or 10 stories? And would the LSNA have been so amenable to the Please Touch demolition if the developer was planning a mid rise apartment building instead of townhomes with garages? And how many times is there a rush to retroactively deem a building historic - that nobody cared about previously - all b/c they don't like what it's being replaced with? Personally, I'm willing to bet that there would be more opposition to this demolition if it was being replaced by a skyscraper.
I don't have all the answers, but it's an interesting debate on an otherwise slow new day.