Well, it doesn’t need to be the Empire State building but a skyscraper of similar design and mass and let’s assume that the proper logistical and financial needs were in place.
Could the ESB stand up to the lateral motion at the bottom? Without the base anchored to the bedrock, would the ESB blow over from the winds at the top? Or any other reason it would fall over or be impossible?
What about other construction methods like the perimeter tube design or in earthquake zones where a large dampener is used near the top of the building?
I’d say no. No materials or technology exist which could support that type of weight and still roll. And the roads around the structure, not to mention any tunnels or piping beneath, would collapse under the pressure.
Balancing the thing would be about 20th on your list of concerns.
That’s why you never see it done with something that size. Isn’t it made of brick, stone, and mortar? Taking it apart piece by piece, (from the top down, necessarily,) would be expensive beyond belief.
Obviously I didn’t ask the question I thought I did.
In reality, the ESB will be imploded and actually moving anything in Manhattan would require moving other buildings out of the way and likely filling tunnels with concrete.
Is there anything about a skyscraper that would make it impossible to move – like falling over, breaking apart or something else? I’m not looking for a money or time (or scale) concern but something directly about skyscrapers.
Unfortunately no, I was watching too much Science Channel, the proposal was moving the pentagon… while operational.
No, the ESB is a steel frame skyscraper design. The brick, stone, & mortar are basically just what they chose for a non-load-bearing ‘skin’ on the outside of the building. They could just as well use glass, like in a lot of later skyscrapers. Or even aluminum siding, if they wanted.
Well, it could be done. Just not practically. You’d have to demolish everything in the path, excavate all the soil and replace it with concrete or structural steel of some sort. It’d be the most expensive thing ever done.
The weight would make it impossable. I saw a story on the ESB The Iron on the 1st floor is compressed 12 inches because of the weight. Imange the jacks and rollers that it would take.
I didn’t ask what the frame was made of. I asked what the building was made of. As in what construction materials would need to be disassembled piece by piece in order to reassemble it elsewhere. Now, if you think that you can take it apart without first removing the brick, stone and mortar, I’m all ears. But until you submit a plan, I’m going to go with my original answer, which is that chipping each brick out individually would make the job prohibitively expensive.
Yep. Just the way they built her: sending stuff through the core of the structure. Only this time it will be rubble instead of supplies, and instead of coming up, it’ll be going down.
Oh. is that all?
The answer is no, it’s impossible. It’s like 360,000 tons or over 3.5 times the mass of a fully loaded Nimitz class aircraft carrier. Unfortunately, unlike a ship, it’s designed to handle loads in one direction - up and down. Enough lateral motion and it woud topple like a house of cards.
Assuming we could clear a path down 34t street, how would you lift the ESB off it’s massive foundation? By building an even bigger frame around it capable of lifting 1/3 of a million tons? And are you just going to roll it down Murray Hill out to the East River and float it away?
Unfortunately no, I was watching too much Science Channel, the proposal was moving the pentagon… while operational.