I had a bunch of conversations with the developer about the clock. It was always his intention to preserve it. He looked into it quite extensively. In the end, like the building, it was beyond redemption. Getting the clock off the building, let along restoring it, would have been very difficult. All the bracket-bolts inside the building were completely frozen. Even if they managed to get it off, restoring it would have been cost prohibitive. All the internal components were rusted and fused together. There are no replacement parts available. Everything would need to be specially machined and fitted. Thousands of dollars with no guarantees of success.
Believe me, I would have liked to have seen the clock saved but I don't think the city can or should dictate that property owners expend large sums of money for projects like this. If there was a "save the clock" campaign to raise funds for a restoration project, I'm sure the owner would have cooperated. There wasn't. I'll also go out on a limb here and say that the clock, even if restored, wasn't much to look at. Half of it was a lighted sign for the bank. This was not "Big Ben". That said, it was something of landmark that we all got used to seeing. I get that.
The developer also wanted to preserve the old façade at 170 Main and looked into bracing it with steel members to build around it (as you might see in Prague or elsewhere in Europe). As it turned out, the installation/pounding of several hundred piles to shore-up the site negated that possibility (which would have been hugely expensive).
For the record, the city does make considerable efforts get developers to preserve history were possible. 210 Main Street is an example. The developer had originally contemplated bifurcating the lobby to include more units. The 1926 lobby ceiling would have been completely lost. The city, working with its planner, prevented that.
We choose our battles.