340 Fremont Topped Out

Construction of the 40-story Rincon Hill tower rising up to 400-feet at 340 Fremont Street has topped out ahead of schedule (i.e., it’s not rising any higher). And the 348 apartments within should be finished by July of 2016.

Designed by Handel Architects for Equity Residential, Suffolk Construction is the general contractor for the tower.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by Buildit

    As long as they are ahead of schedule why not throw up a few more stories!

  2. Posted by jwb

    This thing has been causing epic traffic congestion for years.

    • Posted by sf

      This is a good looking tower.

      • Posted by Sassy

        Agreed. A much better job than the Jasper Tower to the west which turned out so clunky!

      • Posted by Futurist

        Agreed. Love the glassy/reflective quality.

  3. Posted by Frisco

    And the city’s 400′ flattop continues.

    • Posted by Elitist Pig

      Better than a 40′ one.

    • Posted by Futurist

      And the problem is?

    • Posted by Sierrajeff

      that’s a misstatement that’s been disproven many times on this site alone. stop it.

      • Posted by Futurist

        What misstatement?

        • Posted by Sierrajeff

          that we have a 400′ mesa being constructed South of Market. my comment’s in response to Frisco, not you, otherwise it would have been indented another step.

  4. Posted by Dave

    Any idea what a one bedroom on the lower floors will rent for?

    My bet this is not affordable by any stretch – except for the BMR component which is way too small (IMO). Giants did 40% BMR so other developers can too and still make money.

    At least this is rental so the occupants will presumably be full-time SF residents.

    IMO many of the uber-expensive condos going up go to part-time residents. .

    • Posted by The6

      IMO, we have no idea if the Giants will make money or not (and the fact that they AREN’T professional developers is a touch worrying). Even if they do, it’s like saying “McDonalds can make a burger for $1 and be profitable, so I don’t see why anyone else should be able to charge more.”

      IMO most of the apartments that go to part time residents could be rented out to temporary visitors, alleviating the strain on our under-built hotel infrastructure (as long as Prop F doesn’t kill that option).

      Opinions are great because everyone can have them and they don’t need to align at all.

      • Posted by Orland

        Prop F is not going to “kill” anything.

    • Posted by zig

      Aren’t the Giants leasing the land from the Port?

    • Posted by Anon12

      The economics of mandating developers to furnish BMR units is not well understood by many. But understand that developers operate on a certain profit margin. If they foresee less revenue due to BMR units, then they will simply bit less on a project. Therefore, the imposition of BMR units comes at the expense of the landowners. In this case, the city will receive less revenue, meaning a small handful of people win the lottery, at the expense of the general San Francisco resident/tax payer

      It is naïve to imagine this Robin hood a scenario where the poor benefit at the expense of the “rich” developers.

      • Posted by Dave

        But the reality is most San Franciscans cannot afford the condo units going up downtown and other places. Who are these being built for? How does the City gain? From part-time residents and such.

        The BMR units are hardly low income. One needs a good job and hefty down payment even if they win the lottery.

        • Posted by zig

          The city should focus on moderate density housing in other areas and streamlining the development processs

          • Posted by Orland

            Of course, Dave is adamantly opposed to upzoning “other areas” (i.e., Sunset, Outer Mission , Bayview).

        • Posted by ess

          The one person I’ve met who had a BMR in the Paramount was a non-profit worker. City workers also benefit.

  5. Posted by NJ

    Cool picture – taken from another building?

    • Posted by Oakland lover

      seems probable….there is one right across the street under construction in the spot where yes they could have taken this picture…..its about the same height as well and topped out too, 399 fremont i think it is. i just walked through that area during lunch today to check out the progress. its looking great! its changed so much since 2001 when i moved here. Keep the towers coming!

      • Posted by sf

        399 has taken twice as long to build, and the glazing is not even complete yet. If I were looking for a contractor, I’d hire who ever build this tower and avoid whoever is in charge of 399.

        • Posted by James

          Rome was not built in a day.

        • Posted by wiger toods

          Just because one tower is appreciably faster, does not make it better. I would be concerned about the quality of construction for such a fast pace. On the flip side I might be concerned 399 Fremont is taking too long because of problems. Bottom line, it’s about quality not speed.

        • Posted by Can't Think of Cool Name

          @sf, not to defend 399 Fremont since they can defend themselves, but if I remember correctly, the reason for taking so long to complete was due to the fact that their windows were caught up in that Oakland port slowdown a bunch of months back. Not sure you can blame the contractor for that one. Maybe you can?

          • Posted by boysf

            you are correct. the port strike with the glass slowed this tower to a crawl.

          • Posted by sf

            Then why is the pace of the glazing installation still so ridiculously slow? It averages about 1 floor a week to installed the glass.

          • Posted by MO

            I remember reading delays in the shipping of cheaper glass from China was a big reason for the delay.

      • Posted by Orland

        Now, 399 Fremont is truly an architectural disappointment. Too damn much greeny glass on top Infinity and Lumina.

  6. Posted by jamesjr

    Love this one. I agree, Jasper is a disappointment.

  7. Posted by Bob

    I don’t get why everyone hates jasper so much. It’s just not that bad.

    • Posted by Orland

      The western elevation is disappointing. Otherwise, I agree the criticism here is overwrought.

      • Posted by boysf

        i agree that Jasper’s eastern face is ok. yet, what really needs to be learned here:
        Jasper’s western elevation or face is the freaking “elevator core”. therefore, they value engineered the western face. for a 400′ plus foot building everyone sees when leaving the city, this should not have been found acceptable by…the planning dept.

        • Posted by Sierrajeff

          Beyond being dumb value engineering – and setting aside whether Planning should be so involved in design aesthetics – it’s just stupid economics. The western view – over Twin Peaks, the rolling fog, the sunsets – should be a desirable attribute, not something you wall off. If the core wall was to face any direction, it should have been south, to avoid insolation and the freeway / rooftop views.

          • Posted by Orland

            Good point, and why the hell couldn’t the core of the building have actually been at its core,

    • Posted by BTinSF

      At one point what is now Jasper was to be an uber-luxury building with units of the largest size and fanciest finishes in town. Then it was sold and “value-engineered” to what it is. I hate it because of what it could have been and because as it turned out it’s the least attractive of the Rincon Hill towers. I suppose I might feel differently if we didn’t have the others for comparison, but we do.

  8. Posted by boysf

    one day i saw one of the window panels being trucked off the bay bridge.
    ie. the panels on the south face, to the left of the glassy, eastern face in the photo.

    the panels were very prefab and even had the glass already installed.

    personally, i think the city needs to hold these towers to the highest architectural standards that are possible. yet, i know this one was approved at a low point in the economic cycle, when the city wanted more housing.

    if anything, this is the most glamorous angle one can get for a cheap tower. kudos to the photographer shooting from 399 Fremont.

    thank goodness the current crop of towers in the planning and approvals process (like transbay 8 and the jeanne gang towers) are light years ahead architecturally. in the current, hot market, the city can now (inconsistently) be choosy.

  9. Posted by Pablito

    Good to have more housing but I’d hate to be in this thing during a major earthquake. What if the power goes out? How do you get up and down 40 flights of stairs?

    • Posted by dch

      by walking

    • Posted by RichSFdeveloper

      the power doesn’t just ‘go out’ … there are back up systems galore.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles