It isn't so much that there's "nothing inside worth saving"--after all, in certain heritage-friendly circles these days, "embodied energy" arguments can overshadow even aesthetics in justifying the wisdom of saving the old and pre-existing.
From what I gather, the problem reported here is that whatever the facade quality, the existing concrete superstructure was discovered to be poorly constructed in the first place (back in the 1920s), to the point where there was little-or-no economic choice other than to tear down and rebuild in kind, using original or appropriately-replicated elements where possible. A more aggravated version of the reported Concourse Building situation, IOW...