Or stucco! A stucco skyscraper, wouldn’t that be great?
Give those architecture snobs at The New Yorker something to talk about.
There is a (fictional, obviously) book about this called Unbuilding by David Macaulay, although the premise is that the building is disassembled & assembled elsewhere (Saudi Arabia, I think).
[quote=“msmith537, post:20, topic:493580”]
Wait…IMploded???
Haven’t heard of that?
Imploding is a method of getting rid of a building by dynamiting key structural points to force it to fall apart - but inward. The blast is the last thing which happens: before that, months are spent carefully weakening the internal structure and remving pretty much anything except the structure. Neighboring buildings may also receive temporary padding or shielding. When done properly (and with something like this, I’ve never heard of it once being done improperly - the risk is too great), the building simply vanished into a cloud of dust and is simply gone. The rubble is then removed easily and new construction can begin.
A previous poster mentioned that New York prohibits it. This is probably due to powerful construction unions, because overall it’s actually safer (if more dramatic) than traditional demolition methods. It’s a matter of one (fairly dangerous and predictable) threat versus long, ongoing destruction work.
Youtube has a lot of these: Implosions
I’d have to disagree. It’s possible in absolute engineering terms. I mean, if you went to an engineer and asked how to move a structure like that, you could probably do it. The usual method to moving strucures is just to dig out the foundation, suppoer it on something else bit by bit, and then move on. And doing so would be ludicrous and take tens or even hundreds of thousands and poeple. And of course, a building in a city would require you to strip out many other structures down to the bedrock to do it.
But it could be done. It’s just that you’d have to be insane to do it.
Is this just hypothetical, or are there plans to tear it down? 
All tall buildings are designed to resist lateral loads. Ever hear of an earthquake? Yes, even New York has to worry about earthquakes. Long period motions can travel very long distances without being attenuated much, especially in the eastern united states where the bedrock is fairly intact/stiff.
You’ll notice I never said anything about moving it off the foundation. I would think the foundation would be coming with. Replace the soil beneath it with concrete. This is actually a trivial problem if you assume infinite time and money. I think the OP was asking if it’s technically possible, not if it’s feasible, so this is a decent assumption. Once you do that you drill holes across the bottom and insert steel rollers. Once you have enough rollers in place so that the pressures aren’t too great you excavate the soil between them so that it can roll. At this point it’s mobile, What happens next depends on where you want to move it to.
[quote=“smiling_bandit, post:23, topic:493580”]
Of course I have.
It was a reference to an old Simpson’s episode. In the epsiode, a crowd has gathered to watch Mr Burn’s casino being demolished. As Bart yells out “Yeaay!! Here comes the IMPLOSION!”, a worker presses the detonator plunger but then exclaims “IMplosion?!!” The casino then predictable explodes into a million pieces raining flaming debris all over the crowd.
Yes, I think I remember something about that in my structural engineering classes while I was getting my undergrad in civil engineering.
You are correct that skyscrapers are designed to resist lateral loads like earthquakes (or more commonly, wind). They are not, however, designed to resist loads such as the building being tilted more than a few degrees (as may occur when trying to move it up or down grade) or oscillations that may occur from the buildings acceleration (regardless how slow).
There are steel structures the same scale as the ESB that are, however.
It’s a trivial problem to excavate under the foundation of a building, build a reinforced concrete pad and insert some rollers?
I don’t think that is the way to go. The friction on the rollers would probably render them useless as bearings, if they weren’t crushed flat outright. And how would you tow it
The problem is the mass of the structure. There are clearly objects as large as the Empire State Building that move - large ships and oil platforms for example. However they have nowhere near the mass.
Which gives me an idea. If time, money and pissing off the rest of Manhattan are no barriers, I suppose you can construct a massive steel shell around the base of the building and under the foundation. Sort of like a giant potted plant. Remember that this shell needs to displace as much as 3-4 aircraft carriers. Then just dig a canal from the East River and float the whole thing out.
Probably just cheaper to take it apart piece by piece or just build a brand new one somewhere else.
The force per roller need not be high at all. You just distribute it over a larger area.
That’s another idea.
I don’t think anybody thinks this would be cost effective. You could probably build dozens of new ones for the cost of transporting it. I’m just saying that it would be doable.
Why all the emphasis on whether or not the surrounding streets would hold the weight?
Think dirigibles! 
If my calculations are correct:
To float the Empire State building in water, we need a displacement of 360,000 m[sup]3[/sup], which is a 71-meter cube or a 110-meter hemisphere. (Assuming 360x10[sup]6[/sup] kg mass and density of water about 1000 kg/m[sup]3[/sup].)
To float the Empire State building in air, we need a displacement of 350,000,000 m[sup]3[/sup], which is a 700-meter cube or a 870-meter sphere. (Assuming a density of air about 1.2 kg/m[sup]3[/sup] and of helium about 0.17 kg/m[sup]3[/sup].)
In practice, we’ll need greater displacement volumes because we’ll also have to float the hull(s) or balloons and cables.
If you use hydrogen (I assumed a mass of 380,000 tons because that means you need a nice round number of 10 bn cubic feet of hydrogen) you only need ~280,000,000 cubic meters. This is also useful because, while (according to NPR) 350,000,000 cubic meters of helium is twice the yearly output (and about a third of the US National Helium Reserve at its peak), hydrogen production in 2004 was ~500 billion cubic meters (and growing at 10% yearly).
Clearly* lifting the Empire State Building is feasible, then, if we could break it free of the ground (maybe we can rock it back and forth a bit?). Put ropes under the foundation or what have you, taking a bit of the earth with it so the building can gambol about, spindizzy-style, amongst the heavens. To me this brings up a related series of questions: suppose we did that, for whatever reason–uprooted the ESB and flew it to Kansas or some place where it’s less likely to be destroyed by floods, aliens and the like. What then?
Would anyone be willing to work there (the ESB that is, not Kansas)? Would there be structural concerns once it had settled in its new home? Would it be possible to design a new resting place for the skyscraper such that it wouldn’t topple over or sink into the ground (I suppose the answer is “yes” but can anyone speculate on how complicated such a process would be?)? Would the process of transportation, presuming we grabbed the building under its base (making sure to lift with our knees, not our back, of course), damage it? (I think that’s close to what the OP was asking)
- No.