As a tipster reports, the parking lot at the corner of Fremont and Harrison has been closed. And as plugged-in people know, it’s a 7-story building with 308 rental units, subterranean parking for 204, and a landscaped park which will rise in the lot’s place.
Once again, the majority of units will be one-bedrooms averaging 500 square feet, the building will be condo mapped for future conversion, and construction will take roughly two years with the units ready for occupancy in 2013.
∙ DO NOT READ THIS Unless You Really Need To Know Re: 333 Harrison [SocketSite]
∙ A Plugged-In Reader’s 12 Notes On The “PC” Approved 333 Harrison [SocketSite]
It may just be from this sketching, but it looks like afternoon shadows could be an issue here.
shadows constantly move. with the “shadow” problem logic, why not get rid of the trees too?
That’s an awful lot of blackened sky. Those who have to look at the current monstrosity are going to hate its companion. Turning downtown into wall of glass and steel, obscuring the public view of the East Bay makes for another dull, even bleak landscape. Just more buildings, like piles of junk in big box stores.
And this will succeed where One Rincon – sorry the cancelled “Two” Rincon – failed?
Having out of town developers take their money after building for single,rich hipsters doesn’t help the local economy or the city’s image. We’ve already lost families, African Americans, the middle class and anyone who is invested in any way but immediate financial gain is getting screwed. We have boring buildings and less interesting people.
Um, maybe because most trees don’t tower over buildings and cast shadows over their outdoor rooftop open spaces?
Not even Los Angelenos desire to live this close to a freeway. I guess this will be attractive to south bay commuters?
Now thats shadow inventory
Did someone show sue hestor how to use the internet?
Give me a break MM2. I mean, I know people come to SF just to look at the East bay- but it really seems to me like the only thing dull, is your reading of highrises in SF.
Your hyperbole laced screed about development reads like “things white people like” 101.
This is the type of project that would be perfect where Tishman’s 201 Folsom is supposed to be.
Just build another high rise there, that little building with wedged in park looks so painfully awkward.
BTW, modernqueen, one rincon hill part deux is not cancelled (at least not permanently). I would not be at all suprised if tower 2 breaks ground before the end of 2012.
Oh I’m fully aware that Rincon 2 will most likely go ahead. i think it’s going to be a great project over all.
I was in NYC recently on vacation and loved how the sun constantly moved thruout the city, even with the density and extreme high rises there.
Many San Franciscans are so damn provincial still. Shadows and sun are part of urban living. Let’s keep the density and high rises growing in the right areas, like this one. We need more rich people who can afford here and want to live here.
MM2,
A single tear slowly slides down my cheek when I think of all the misplaced families, many with underprivileged innocent children of promise, that will lack housing due to a condo of single bedroom units built in an empty parking lot next to a freeway.
This was a slam dunk location for a baseball field, natural park, and quaint family homes, but alas, it will forever be lost to those single, rich hipsters who are terrorizing the city.
500 sq ft one bedrooms? .. yuk.. Very family friendly.. how about 1000 sq ft one bedroom places..looks way to tall.. Yuk and double yuk
are there payoffs invloved in all this bad building design and permiting?
I thought we has a planning department.
What are they planning for? A city full of single robots with scant possessions?
It’s beginning to look like midtown in a bad way.
500 sq ft is not even generous for a studio.
Nasty-looking rendering; very distorted. Looks way out of proportion. One tower is 100 feet taller? Doesn’t look like 100 feet. Double uck.
Why is the city of Chicago able to require that proposed new towers have creative designs before they can be built? Why was the city of Chicago able to require the Trump Tower to go back and redesign the top of the building to have a more interesting design and larger roof spire? Chicago long ago moved on from 1977 style box towers to re-writing civic planning guidelines that have now created North America’s most intersting new towers. The city actually madates that new towers have unique creative designs and that these designs “must enhance and excite” the existing Chicago skyline.
If San Francisco continues to claim to be America’s most beautiful city, it should require builders and designers to create America’s most beautiful buildings.
I live in Rincon Hill. We have singles, couples, families, strollers, diversity, dogs. One thing we don’t have is hipsters. They wouldn’t be caught dead living in our neighborhood. They do work nearby though(Bryant between 2nd and 5th).
It’s a tower of pied a terres for dot-com 3.0 socialites arriving Saturday afternoons from Mountain View via CalTrain. Get over it.
One thing San Franciscans excel at…
Complaining!
MM2 wrote:
And this will succeed where One Rincon – sorry the cancelled “Two” Rincon – failed?
it’s all about price. price these as entry level housing and they will sell. price them as “luxury living” and they will not.
ORH tried to convince people that it was a luxury abode and it convinced some to shell out for it. but for the most part it’s not really luxurious, and thus it failed.
anon wrote:
I would not be at all suprised if tower 2 breaks ground before the end of 2012.
that would surprise me. It will break ground, eventually. in the next 18 months? hmm…. it’s quite a while since I’ve looked into the financing of ORH, but in the past a large part was due to CBRE Investors who didn’t do so well on ORH. Thus, not sure they’ll want to fund ORH2. seems like more and more of their headlines are about Europe (buying ING Clarion, expanding into CBRE UK, etc).
This is about the 7 story complex to the east of ORH, not ORH2.
And 500 s.f. average means many units are less than 500 sf–hello Cubix II
If San Francisco continues to claim to be America’s most beautiful city
Who claims this, and will they please share whatever they’re smoking?
It’s a tower of pied a terres for dot-com 3.0 socialites
Riiight. Keep telling yourself that — they either live here already or buy on the Peninsula. This myth has already been destroyed with the massive foreclosures and short sales in these types of buildings.
500 sq ft is not even generous for a studio.
It is in NY. 🙂 I agree, the problem is that there isn’t much thought given to families here, but I feel the city has already given up on that and has a long time ago. For one thing, its other policies are not family friendly.
Best comment on this thread was probably Bob at 2:42PM. I also agree with Modernqueen that this shadow nonsense is typical of San Franciscans being provincial. It’s such a strange complaint for a city that also typically touts its density as a virtue.
Anybody that chooses to raise children in San Francisco in neighborhoods other than Pacific Heights, the Marina, Richmond, and Sunset should have their kids taken away by CPS for child abuse, and I’m not even kidding.
sfrenegade – I didn’t bring up the shadow issue as a way to oppose the project, I just wondered how it would effect the desirability of the units as the complex has an interior courtyard and roofdeck space.
Although I can’t imagine too much tranquility would be had on that roofdeck when you’re a stone’s throw away from the bridge.
Ya think the noise from the BB will be a little overwhelming for the “court Yard” units? I note operable windows in the rendering of those units in the…..aka echo chamber.
Hey it’s a publicly subsidized rentals (federal tax dollars) …..Emerald fund (local developer)has to make money somewhere in this crappy market…..I guess we give e’m a break.
Oh…and did I mention tire dust…..(250,000 vehicles daily)…just what the kids playing in the park need….oy vey..
I could say more but I will leave it to silk purse from sows ear. I would have built a 6 story parking structure on the site.
This has disaster written all over it. 500 sq. ft units? Right next to a freeway? And no units high enough to be quiet?
I’m glad their building something, but will all the empty lots in the area couldn’t they build on a more suitable location?
FAIL
^^^ You mean like Bridgeview right next door?