CFAH

333 Harrison Lot Design
As proposed, the development of 333 Harrison Street and Fremont in San Francisco’s Rincon Hill neighborhood would result in a 7-story, 65-foot tall residential apartment building containing approximately 308 units, with two levels of subterranean parking for 204 and a landscaped park between Harrison Street and the building.
333 Harrison: Design (Image Source: dbarchitect.com)
Tomorrow, San Francisco’s Historic Preservation Commission will hold a public hearing to review and comment on a recently finished Cultural Resources Sensitivity Study for the development. From the introduction to the study which is now online:

This report contains confidential cultural resources location information; report distribution should be restricted to those with a need to know. Cultural resources are nonrenewable, and their scientific, cultural, and aesthetic values can be significantly impaired by disturbance. To deter vandalism, artifact hunting, and other activities that can damage cultural resources, the locations of cultural resources should be kept confidential.

Or just posted online.
A Plugged-In Reader’s 12 Notes On The “PC” Approved 333 Harrison [SocketSite]
333 Harrison Street Section 106 Review and Comment [sfplanning.org]

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    Interesting how neither of these renderings even hint to the fact that an elevated freeway bridge approach abuts this property.
    Still I like this project. Appropriate density and will enhance the neighborhood.

  2. Posted by Paul Hwang

    I like it, much better than a parking lot. What’s the time line?

  3. Posted by invented

    I’m loving the design as shown. Planned uses for the roof are a good thing. As for “Cultural Resources Sensitivity Study” — it seems that many odd things are revealed & take place on Tuesdays.

  4. Posted by BobN

    They’re right to be worried. The widespread appreciation for the “cultural resources” they’re talking about is what accounts for the enduring success of places like Pottery-shard Barn.

  5. Posted by BT

    As for the building, I would prefer it be taller like the buildings around it. But for its size, it seems nice.
    And now the world knows the cultural secrets of this part of SoMa–the ones that need to be kept confidential. I felt no urge to engage in any vandalism before I knew them nor do I now.

  6. Posted by Joe

    Ethnographic background????
    These people have their heads so far up their azzes
    Seriously, why dont we get down to the microscopic GRAIN level of the site, dont want to miss anything!

  7. Posted by MarinaRenter

    Higher density and more housing to decrease cost-of-living in SF!!!!! This is downtown! We need more density!

  8. Posted by @Joe

    Why stop there? We need to study the quantum particles of the area!

  9. Posted by lol

    Archeological-style research for 100 or so old settlements? What if they find late 1800s thanksgiving dinner leftovers? I see the Jurassic Park scenario right there with non-GMO turkey instead of T-Rex genes.

  10. Posted by Bob

    What about the collective memories on site? Are they not historic? I cant believe this study did not take this into account. They should hire 50 past life regression therapists and have them spend an hour per sq ft of dirt on site. Each active memory should be cataloged and separately evaluated as a potential historic resource. We should never forget our history!

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Articles