Re de-orbitting the ISS
Remember that the Eiffel Tower was only supposed to stay up for a year too.
It's a shame they dumped Mir really. But by the end Mir was a godawful botch-job, full of short-circuits and riddled with a nasty type of fungus that was affecting astronauts' health and eating away at the circuitry, so it was too hard to keep it going.
Once there's enough ISS up there to do useful stuff, I expect it *will* get some real use. Crystal growth in particular is something which can be done properly in zero-G, and that's got real implications for silicon wafers and other real-world stuff. The problem until very recently is that there hasn't been enough ISS to allow more crew than required to keep the thing ticking over, so zero-G experiments just haven't been happening. Now they are, which is good.
The ISS problem at the moment is that it's in LEO which isn't a good place for most things. An ISS out at a Lagrange point would be significantly more useful. All current space-based observatories need to work 100%, and any failure tends to wipe them out. Having the ISS in reasonable proximity to WMAP or future Hubbles would solve the maintenance problem - you'd still need to send parts up the gravity well, but it'd be a lot easier if there's a maintenance crew on hand. Out at a Lagrange point, you're also outside the Earth's magnetic field, so it's a good opportunity to check how exposure to solar radiation affects people and equipment (and to test out your shielding), whilst still being close enough to get back home. As a stepping-stone to Mars, that'd be a good call.
The problem of course is how to lift it. The likely answer would be a VASIMR engine. That wouldn't generate enough impulsive thrust to affect ISS integrity, but it'd still provide enough push to move the ISS around at a reasonable rate. The ISS doesn't look much like a rocket or a space shuttle, but of course there's no need for it too - space doesn't need aerodynamics.