An interesting thought is that many of the Victorian masterpieces were considered ugly in their time. But then again, it's hard to see anyone coming around to the goofy buildings in this article.
I'd be interested to see evidence of that. It seems to me that there is a clear downward trend in building aesthetics, i.e. that it's not just a case of "no one likes new things until they are old." To stay on the subject of train stations, I don't think anyone has built a building as beautiful as, say, Saint Pancras in London or Gare de Lyon in Paris in many decades.
I listened to the Teaching Company series of lectures about Victorian Britain, which doesn't lend itself to finding an easy citation for you.
I kind of suspect that there's some kind of (tax?) benefit to retaining part of the old building, and these architects are doing the absolute minimum to qualify for it without really honoring what was probably the intent of the policy.
In many stateside jurisdictions, remodeling a building makes you exempt from many zoning requirements that were instated after the original building was constructed. To qualify as a remodel rather than new construction, you can keep as little as a single wall of the previous structure.