I wonder if another artist painted a whaling vessel on the building across the street from one of Wyland's "whaling walls" -- with the first mate poised in the bow, harpoon clenched in his eager hand -- would Wyland have a case for intentional infliction of emotional distress?

Now as to VARA, it incorporates special provisions for "artwork fixed to buildings", q.v.:

https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#113

And to boil my interpretation down as it applies to the instant case:

1) The artist has a right to retrieve/salvage/"save" the work in question if it is to be destroyed.

2) The artist must be notified if planned "removal" of the work would destroy it, obviously the case here.

3)  But within 90 days of notification, the artist must then remove the work or pay to have it removed, or they waive their VARA right to retrieve it.

It'd seem more like archaeology than art, but that's Wyland's legal recourse if he chooses to exercise it.