NEW YORK | The Setai - 400 Fifth Ave | 631 FT / 192.3 M | 57 FLOORS | T/O - Page 9

Dac150 · #**161** Posted **Nov 21, 2009, 3:51 PM**

I don’t think this building is meant to blow the minds of anyone, but at the same time it’s seems like a good quality addition to the area. I wouldn’t call it an icon by any stretch, but nonetheless it’s a very handsome building which adds some new dynamic to the area.

Antares41 · #**162** Posted **Nov 21, 2009, 8:54 PM**

Agree, the building is not iconic and were it not for it location (proximity to ESB) and the better than anticipated quality of its construction. This one would have remained under the radar screen.

Iconic buildings are rare. The only building under construction in NYC today I would say is well on its way to being iconic is the Beekman Tower due to its folded/wavy skin.

Nevertheless, The Setai, is a beautiful and welcome addition to Fifth Ave, unlike that other aqua-colored residential abomination, I think its 325 Fifth Ave, now thats a true eyesore!

Ordo_ · #**163** Posted **Nov 21, 2009, 9:03 PM**

...so much for my request for specifics...

NYguy · #**164** Posted **Nov 21, 2009, 9:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ordo_

...so much for my request for specifics...

Your "specifics" were given, you just choose not to see them. And that's fine. Not everyone has to agree to like everything. However, your point that you don't like the building is well taken. Now you take into account that most seem to agee that its a decent to excellent addition. Beauty is something not always quantified. So in short, give it a rest.

NYguy · #**165** Posted **Nov 21, 2009, 10:02 PM**

asterix611

In the shadow of the Empire State...

...or not.

Dac150 · #**166** Posted **Nov 21, 2009, 10:04 PM**

Just another tree in the forest.

NYguy · #**167** Posted **Nov 21, 2009, 10:12 PM**

One more, of the crown...

asterix611

JayPro · #**168** Posted **Nov 21, 2009, 11:11 PM**

Do you know if that outer covering on the crown in the last pic will stay or go? I'm hoping for a silver crown here. BTW I thought its exterior was whitish...I think I'm confusing myself LOL.

NYCLuver · #**169** Posted **Nov 22, 2009, 12:15 AM**

Yeah its interesting, from below the crown looks white, from above it looks silver.

JohnFlint1985 · #**170** Posted **Nov 22, 2009, 5:55 AM**

Thymant · #**171** Posted **Nov 22, 2009, 7:55 AM**

Maybe its just me, but with every angle I look at this tower it looks ugly. I think its the window, the concret, the design, just everything. But I love the height!

JohnFlint1985 · #**172** Posted **Nov 22, 2009, 12:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thymant

Maybe its just me, but with every angle I look at this tower it looks ugly. I think its the window, the concret, the design, just everything. But I love the height!

It is actually some sort of stone - not concrete.

JayPro · #**173** Posted **Nov 22, 2009, 5:41 PM**

It looks as if they're waiting till the end to do something about that gap balow the crown...it might not be the same facade-wise as the rest of the structure.

Dac150 · #**174** Posted **Nov 22, 2009, 6:21 PM**

Actually those close-up views of the façade have really enhanced my liking towards this one. Really cool actually, different, breaks it up a little.

NYC4Life · #**175** Posted **Nov 23, 2009, 3:45 AM**

Whether you like the design or not, the tower has had an immediate impact on that area of Midtown.

fancyschmancy · #**176** Posted **Nov 23, 2009, 4:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYCLuver

Yeah its interesting, from below the crown looks white, from above it looks silver.

I think that the stainless steel crown has been designed to get the same effect that you can see in the Chrysler Building. You won't have the sun reflecting the light in that way using another material.
Cool

hunser · #**177** Posted **Nov 23, 2009, 6:40 PM**

do we already know what the final height will be? surely it's over 660' ...

colemonkee · #**178** Posted **Nov 23, 2009, 6:52 PM**

The facade is stone on the base, but switches to pre-cast concrete panels for the tower portion, and it's noticeable in JohnFlint's excellent pictures. Had they carried the stonework into the tower portion instead of the concrete with those horizontal notches, it would be much more striking, imo. The concrete doesn't kill it for me, but it definitely cheapens it.

fancyschmancy · #**179** Posted **Nov 23, 2009, 8:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by colemonkee

The facade is stone on the base, but switches to pre-cast concrete panels for the tower portion, and it's noticeable in JohnFlint's excellent pictures. Had they carried the stonework into the tower portion instead of the concrete with those horizontal notches, it would be much more striking, imo. The concrete doesn't kill it for me, but it definitely cheapens it.

The result is amazing though and it doesn't cheapens it at all, perhaps it makes it feasable from an economic point of view. You have other part of the building with very expensive details (stainless steel crown, limestone base, angled windows, etc.). Remember, this is private money, not a museum so things have to make sense. Or maybe you would have preferred a building like 325 Fifth Avenue? THAT is cheap!

colemonkee · #**180** Posted **Nov 23, 2009, 9:57 PM**

^ I assume you're talking about 425 Fifth Ave., which is a different beast. The gaudiness of 425, which I assume most people don't like about it, is a product of the architect's style, not the building materials (425 5th is limestone and brick, IIRC). That being said, I still like the result of this building far better than 425 Fifth, which I think is pretty atrocious, but I think this building could have been better.