Street Art vs. Architecture

I read an interesting article today that got me thinking: What art form carries more merit and might win this fight? When artists go head to head not thinking about the scope beyond their particular medium what losses are incurred?

Here's the article for reference: New York graffiti complex headed for Demolition

Initially I went in siding with the street artist. Old buildings and the organic nature of graffiti bring a certain element of character and distinction to cities. BUT, then I thought how gorgeous architecture can be and the different element of character and distinction that can bring to cities. THAT distinctly relies on the architect and the design type being approved.

What if ... the 17 artists who are filing this lawsuit were able to win the fight by being commissioned by the new developers to incorporate new art that would be more permanent and hold stature. They are arguing that this is what their artwork is and why the building should not be demolished, so live up to that standard and acquire higher recognition and acclaim by being a staple to the uniqueness of this new development. "Luxury" being the term here that might cause a rub ... but to each their own interpretation. A lot of it depends on the target audience and clientele they are trying to bring into the area with these new lofts.

Which side do you lean towards?

*Disclaimer - the 'luxury flats' image I referenced here was just a generic Google image result.