SAN FRANCISCO | 399 Fremont Street | 400 FT | 42 FLOORS

[ElDuderino]

This thing is going up fast

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

Title of thread needs to be changed- this is 399 Fremont St.

I suggested that months ago, but it was shot down for some reason. The explanation was that the low rise is 375 Fremont, as if that makes any sense

[mt_climber13]

There is a huge banner on the top of the tower that says

399 Fremont

[cmak]

[boyinthecity]

Indeed, the banner on the building says 399 fremont.
I noticed that the crane from twin peaks is now a bit taller than 45 lansing.

Does anyone know how accurate the cover picture is?
It looks as if the crown of the building was quite a bit downsized from its original conception.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by boyinthecity

Indeed, the banner on the building says 399 fremont.

I noticed that the crane from twin peaks is now a bit taller than 45 lansing. Does anyone know how accurate the cover picture is? It looks as if the crown of the building was quite a bit downsized from its original conception.

The thread needs to be corrected to 399 and the height should show the full height of the tower with its crown. Can anyone get that to happen?

[fflint]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

The thread needs to be corrected to 399 and the height should show the full height of the tower with its crown. Can anyone get that to happen?

I must have missed something--do we know for certain how tall the building will be, crown inclusive?

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by fflint

I must have missed something--do we know for certain how tall the building will be, crown inclusive?

No, so it would be great if someone could verify it from plans. Information I've found in articles ranges from 398 to 440; I'm guessing the latter since it would be similar to the other two Rincon Hill "400 feet" towers.

[simms3_redux]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

No, so it would be great if someone could verify it from plans. Information I've found in articles ranges from 398 to 440; I'm guessing the latter since it would be similar to the other two Rincon Hill "400 feet" towers.

I recently went back and looked at Planning Commission docs for these towers and found nothing to the top of the crown for this particular tower. The most recent PC files were simply updates to the old design and had stats to PC defined roofline, not to crown. However, we know for instance that the official height of 45 Lansing will be 430'5" to its crown and there are many many diagrams that give us that data from various elevations.

I would guess for this one, based on renderings, and based on the fact that the official height of ORH North in PC docs is just under 500' (not 541')...ORH South PC docs indicate <600' too (which seems weird because the tower seems so much taller), that 399 Fremont is a good 455-470' high with crown.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by simms3_redux

I would guess for this one, based on renderings, and based on the fact that the official height of ORH North in PC docs is just under 500' (not 541')...ORH South PC docs indicate <600' too (which seems weird because the tower seems so much taller), that 399 Fremont is a good 455-470' high with crown.

I hope you're right--that would be some really nice height in comparison to just 400'. It's weird that we've never truly been able to know the actual heights of the One Rincon Hill towers! The debate over the first one went on forever before and during its construction; from multiple angles and viewpoints, it certainly looks in excess of 600' to me.

Thanks for the input simms.

[rocketman_95046]

Emporis is usually very good with building data (as they actually sell it) and they have Rincon Hill South at 605ft and Rincon Hill North at 495ft. Visually this looks about right.

http://www.emporis.com/statistics/tallest-buildings-sanfrancisco-ca-usa

Emporis also has 399 Femont at 440ft. Which from the rendering looks right as well.

http://www.emporis.com/city/sanfrancisco-ca-usa/all-buildings/3

http://www.emporis.com/building/399-fremont-street-san-francisco-ca-usa

[simms3_redux]

^^^2 things. Planning has ORH North at 495' as well, but ORH South at something like 595'. Personally, I don't know if it's possible to visually tell the difference between say 495' and 541' or 595', 605' and 628', etc, especially when there is a hill involved.

RE: 399 Fremont, I personally think the renderings make the crown a little larger than <40'. It's 400' to the top of the slab of the top RENTABLE floor, and there is both mechanical, rooftop amenities, and this crown above that, with this crown particularly large. To me it looks like more than 1/10 the "meat and potatoes" of the height of the building.

It's frustrating that we cannot get this information precisely and easily. SF's whole skyline heights could be totally inaccurate. Think about how many buildings are at 600' exactly, 400' exactly, etc etc. Even the height of the Four Seasons (398' and about 2 other quoted heights) seems to be up for debate.

[tall/awkward]

Why is it so hard to get an accurate height for an SF building? I guess the hills don't help, which lead to differing totals depending on which side you're looking at. But I also think the City tends to downplay heights because of all the NIMBYs. One of the Planning documents shows Rincon Two as being 520 feet to the very top. Do you guys remember when 345 California was 723 feet?

[boyinthecity]

first: it sorta looks like the core has reached its maximum height.

second: there was something a while back about about the crown. i think the final plans with the planning commission had the direction of the pitch/angle changed. ie., originally from slanting upward to the south (and toward the rincon towers) .. this was changed by 180 degrees, slanting upward to the north.

personally, i think the original plan with more harmonious with the surrounding towers.

[timbad]

dark pic, but the first glass has gone up...

[viewguysf]

I saw the glass and siding tonight too--four of the towers are definitely going to look quite similar in this regard.

[IMG]IMG_4753 by viewguysf, on Flickr[/IMG]

[IMG]IMG_4758 by viewguysf, on Flickr[/IMG]
IMG_4754 by viewguysf, on Flickr

[viewguysf]

From the upper Castro, 399 looks as if it's getting fairly close to One Rincon Hill's North Tower height, but not in this shot I took tonight from Harrison Street.

[IMG]IMG_4736 by viewguysf, on Flickr[/IMG]

[simms3_redux]

Taken 3/15/15. 399 Fremont is going to have a very limited effect on the skyline from most angles. Where 45 Lansing is visible to most of the city but hidden from waterfront view, 399 Fremont will have the reverse effect and will be basically hidden from the city, but will be notable from the waterfront.

The tower also does seem a little shorter/squatter than I had hoped. Time for 50+ stories in this town, I think.


IMG_7835 by simms3sf, on Flickr

NOT a fan of the glass, so far. However, I like the street wall that came with this project. Knowing how many ACT buses line up daily right there, I'd rather be high up on that corridor.


IMG_7838 by simms3sf, on Flickr


IMG_7839 by simms3sf, on Flickr

[mt_climber13]

Originally Posted by simms3_redux

The tower also does seem a little shorter/squatter than I had hoped. Time for 50+ stories in this town, I think.

Agree with you 110% Simms..

I look at some of these new developments and fantasize about how much better they would look if they were at least 600', not to mention contributing more to the housing situation. NEMA, 399 Fremont, and Lumina come to mind.

[simms3_redux]

To be fair, housing *size* is small in SF. Lumina is luxury product with penthouses listed for up to $49M and yet they still fit 655 units on half a block. NEMA is top of the market for rental product in terms of amenities and luxury and that's still 754 units on maybe a quarter of that block.

[AndrewK]

I was stuck in traffic yesterday so I snapped this shot, looks like it is topped off: