An excavator lurched over the remains of a building on East Carson Street Friday, clearing debris from the 19th-century structure to make way for a grocery and marking the end of a lengthy battle between historic preservationists, city officials and a developer.

Workers from Noralco Corp., a subcontractor of developer Burns & Scalo, started tearing down the building Wednesday at 7 a.m., the day after Allegheny County Common Pleas Court Judge Joseph James lifted a temporary stay of demolition.

They plan to break for the holiday weekend and finish work Thursday, said project superintendant Richard Giannoccora,

"It's amazing what you can do in a few days to a 140-year-old building," said South Side architect Gerald Morosco, who restored the structure in the 1990s and led the effort to save it.

Burns & Scalo proposed in June to demolish 2628 E. Carson St., convert the site into an Aldi grocery store and renovate the adjacent building into apartments.

Burns & Scalo owner Jim Scalo could not be reached for comment Friday.

Because East Carson Street is a historic district, an architectural firm submitted the plan to the city's Historic Review Commission.

In July, the commission denied the demolition request and asked Burns & Scalo to relocate the building, which dated to the 1870s and was one of a few remaining local examples in the vernacular of the era, with a wooden storefront, slope roof and dormer.

Some residents championed the building as the last of its kind on the eastern edge of the district. Others dismissed the structure as unremarkable and out of step with the SouthSide Works complex across the street.

On Aug. 4, after Burns & Scalo told the commission that it would cost more than $1 million to move the structure and raised concerns about its stability, the commission changed its mind and approved the demolition.

Mr. Morosco filed an appeal in Common Pleas Court and a temporary stay of demolition was granted Aug. 23. Judge James lifted the stay Tuesday and dismissed the appeal.

In his written opinion, filed Thursday, he wrote that Mr. Morosco lacked legal standing to bring the suit, ruling that "common interest" in the building's significance was not sufficient. He also wrote that the stay on the demolition could not continue even if Mr. Morosco had standing.

He noted that preservationists were divided over the building's import, writing that the case highlighted "the subjective nature of decisions as to what is historically significant."

By Friday afternoon, most of the facade had been felled. Three jagged walls remained, surrounded by piles of brick.

Mr. Morosco said he was disappointed with the court's decision.

"It raises serious concerns about the future of these buildings and structures in the city," he said.

Looking for more from the Post-Gazette? Join PG+, our members-only web site. You'll get exclusive sports content, opinion, financial information, discounts from retailers and restaurants, and more. Our introduction to PG+ gives you all the details.