To save or not to save?

Upon thinking about what program would be "appropriate" to instill in the Civic Arena as a means to save it, I fall upon conflicting interests.

A practical application such as a grocery store or big-box store like a WalMart that many residents of Downtown are craving for would degrade the architecture. I imagine walking around, pushing a shopping cart, picking up a gallon of milk and a dozen eggs beneath the wonderful dome and I find myself thinking how soul-less the building would be if that were its fate. Would a future of soccer-moms and double coupons really be worthy of a building that once hosted legends of music, sport and politics? Farmers markets are slightly more respectable for its green incentives and services but I am still plagued with images of cheap vegetables and the smell of hay. I am almost ashamed to suggest it, but a flea market, in my mind, would be completely inappropriate.

While perhaps the argument can be made that removing a big box store from the big box into a more substantial building could be a catalyst for the elimination of the ridiculous giants that have made their way into the architectural norm. Then again I am reminded that not all buildings need to be landmarks, for a city full of them makes each less important. I am not suggesting that Pittsburgh currently has too many landmarks and therefore the Arena should be torn down. I'm saying if every Target, Wal-Mart and big department decided to create landmark-worthy buildings it would take away from those structures that are worthy of the title.

Still, should I make the argument that the building needs to be preserved in its entirety no matter what the program for historical preservation purposes then perhaps suggesting a Super Wal-Mart would create an interesting debate about the ideas mentioned above. Does the program need to live up to the respectability standard of previous programs?

Then there is always the idea of chopping the building up; not preserving all of it in its entirety. I am forced to consider the possibility. Are there parts that are more important than others? Can the building still serve as a landmark and as a teaching tool for future generations with physical pieces missing? I think yes, but then the questions still remain: what stays? why? what happens here? I am still at a loss for an appropriate program. I presume that mixed-use is always a possibility, but mix-use only means multiple programs, it does not define specifics. Offices? Retail? Parking? Hotel? The possibilities still remain yet to be determined which is the "right" one.

I come full circle by pondering, can the building be saved? Should it be saved? - That's a no brainer: YES. But what is still alluding is how will the building perform and what services will it provide to allow for its preservation to be acceptable?

I am open to any and all comments and suggestions. I realize that this post is probably not as coherent as it should be since most of this is just stream of consciousness, but hopefully there is enough here to get a conversation starting.