The use of the River Side would be combined (half hotel and half office). While it is rare that an office tower in NY has a concrete structure most have a steel skeleton.
These are two very simple drawings a floor plan and a section through the sky deck.
Yes, I have to say that I have no idea if this works with the concrete wall. Since the wall goes from the 1st to the last floor through the whole building.
Yes, using concrete is interesting as you’ve said, commercial buildings are built with steel, but general mixed-use buildings (as in your case) are also built with steel a majority of the time. I wouldn’t particularly see the usefulness of the singular concrete wall behind the deck elevators but it’s an interesting approach to load factoring.
What do you mean by load calculation?
The elevators that go to the sky deck are attached to the wall.
When you ride up in the elevator you see the skyline rising in the ride hence the name Sky-View elevator.
The “statics” as it is referred to outside of the US. Even though building usage is a major factor, material choice has a lot to do with load calculations and “statics” of the building structure. I’m not saying it’s unusual that you’ve designed a purely concrete building on top of a steel support structure, because buildings like that do exist, but it doesn’t make sense to use concrete in your case but for your core.
Why do some steel skeleton construction have a concrete or a steel core? Does this have something to do with wind load? or for statistical reasons.
Well the spiral (as well as 270 park which you might notice is also heavily steel) are both being built over rail lines. I think that’s part of the reason.
@Mackensen, @mcart is partially correct with his example of 270 Park Ave being built over an active railyard as concrete can’t be utilized in it’s case, but The Spiral isn’t built over any rails, it’s just using a steel reinforced concrete core (the steel visible in the image was later encased in concrete).
In general yes, steel buildings often utilize concrete cores (steel reinforced or not) to strengthen the building against lateral loads, outside of the range like old steel buildings like the ESB and Chrysler Building, the most recent examples of only steel buildings with steel cores would be 270 Park Ave and 30 Hudson Yards, both due to being built over active railyards.
How likely would it be that in the next few years, a megatall or two is under construction in New York? Like in the 60s when the old WTC was proposed and finally in the early 70s the construction was completed.
As I think we see a proposal in Manhattan West (zone) in the next few years.
I would personally say unlikely in a few years as the nearest (realistic) proposal, 175 Park ave, is still 120 m short of being a megatall, which is actually a lot and even it’s own completion is several years away. I don’t see a megatall being built in NY for a while.
If you’re interested, you can move the Sky High Tower Complex in your Philadelphia model with a height of 1300 feet.
Stadion 52
This is the first drawing of the stadium it will have one or two floors with many terraces and a Roof Garden. The colors of the glass would be dark blue and purple with silver stripes, but it’s too early for more info. If you like it let me know and there will be a few more drawings.
My renovation concept to Penn Station and MSG 4 (with Roof Garden) this is also just the first drawing.
I like that you’ve included, what I’m assuming is, 2 Penn in the drawing.
Yes, this is Two Penn Place how tall is this building since I need it for my ESC Concept?
Can you tell me how tall the other towers should be as a mass diagram?
2 PENN is 412’ tall, I can’t recall the theoretical height of the other ESC buildings, but Ill get back to you on that. 
I briefly edited my post from yesterday to ask a question here.
How likely is it that something similar will be built again in the near future? As the next tallest Twin Towers in NY.
I still think HY Phase Two is the best location for such a project.
Hudson Yards Phase Two best site for a new MSG.
Is this for a theoretical situation or from a practical viewpoint?
Overall, the original WTC complex totalled nearly 12.5 million square ft (above ground) with each of the towers being 4.3 million sqft. Phase II of Hudson Yards would not be able to support this kind of zoning nor height as the zoning stipulates that the towers need to decrease in height as they near the Hudson.
As to the overall question, the need for that much space (if you are specifically asking for something taller than the original towers) with all the ongoing and new proposals is questionable.
What might the elimination of the FAR mean?
Do the extension of lower Manhattan then rebuild the original Twin towers at the new tip. That would be my dream lol.
Only residential based FAR would be eliminated, it would just mean residential projects could be built/designed to be bigger with more residential units (not necessarily taller).
The fate of the Gimbel’s Building will be determined by which tower proposal Vornado chooses to go with on the site, whether commercial (which demolishes the building) or mix use with commercial and residential (which proposes to just build ontop of the building). But this is only how its proposed, either decision could result in demolition but the commercial only option does result in demolition.
