SAN FRANCISCO | 399 Fremont Street | 400 FT / 122 M | 42 FLOORS - Page 3

BTinSF · #41 Posted **Jun 13, 2007, 11:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by nequidnimis

If I lived there, I would want to live way above it. But it would still leave unresolved the question of how to cross the street, and getting somewhere else for a stroll.

The designated strolling place will be the park a block or so east on Folsom and since they've started building One Rincon I've walked around that area plenty without noticing any trouble crossing any of the streets--ever. They have this marvelous thing called a "traffic light". I think "trouble crossing the streets" as a reason not to live there is a fantasy, assuming the folks who live there would ever want to. My guess is most of them will drive--and hire dog walkers for the pooch--except maybe those who work in the Financial District and "stroll" to work. Noise might be an issue, but I think you can be quite sure all these buildings will have double or triple pane glass. And the biggest noise issue, of course, would be on the south side of One Rincon where you are just a few feet for 80/101.

But the real drawback to walkers of a certain age or disability is the simple fact of the hill. That last block up Fremont from Folsom gets me puffing.

But given the speed with which One Rincon sales progressed, nobody seems too worried about any of this.

OaktownRush · #42 Posted **Jun 14, 2007, 5:03 AM**

Oh, I hope the old warehouse-ish building is staying, its a really attractive building. I really like the smaller residential one also as an idea

BTinSF · #43 Posted **Jun 14, 2007, 7:27 AM**

^^^Sorry. It's has a demolition permit on it. In fact, it is currently designated 355 and 375 Fremont (it's got two entrances)--so it's got to go in order for the new building to be 375 Fremont. I expect the heavy equipment within a month. You could chain yourself to the front of it . . . .

BTinSF · #44 Posted **Jun 20, 2007, 11:12 PM**

Walked by this afternoon. Still no demolition permit on the corner building (399 Fremont) and, in fact there IS a notice from the city that the building has graffiti needing removal. Probably in response to that, I noticed two workmen who were busily stringing razor wire along the railings and 4 cans of paint ready, I think, to paint out the graffiti. All this suggests to me that this building (which is critical to the development since, as I understand it, the actual tower is to go on the corner property) is not coming down any time soon.

roadwarrior · #45 Posted **Jun 21, 2007, 1:05 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BTinSF

Walked by this afternoon. Still no demolition permit on the corner building (399 Fremont) and, in fact there IS a notice from the city that the building has graffiti needing removal. Probably in response to that, I noticed two workmen who were busily stringing razor wire along the railings and 4 cans of paint ready, I think, to paint out the graffiti. All this suggests to me that this building (which is critical to the development since, as I understand it, the actual tower is to go on the corner property) is not coming down any time soon.

Not necessarily true. I walked down the entire street today and noticed that 385 Fremont also had a graffiti removal sign, in addition to its 90 day notice of demolition sign (posted 5/24). So, my guess is that the city didn't want to put up with the graffiti on the street for another 2 months, while they wait for the entire row of buildings to be demolished.

BTinSF · #46 Posted **Jun 21, 2007, 2:02 AM**

^^^I didn't say what I said because of the notice but rather the razor wire being installed and the graffiti removal being done. One hand of the city bureaucracy doesn't know what the other is doing, so I'm sure the graffiti police don't know or care whether the building's about to be demolished. But the owner does and I doubt they'd put money into making it more vagrant-proof and graffiti-free if they were going to tear it down in a matter of days or even weeks.

I'll change my mind, of course, if and when a demolition permit appears on this building like the ones on 355, 375 and the building next door (between 375 and 399). But so far nada and I'm wondering why.

roadwarrior · #47 Posted **Jun 21, 2007, 2:47 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BTinSF

^^^I didn't say what I said because of the notice but rather the razor wire being installed and the graffiti removal being done. One hand of the city bureaucracy doesn't know what the other is doing, so I'm sure the graffiti police don't know or care whether the building's about to be demolished. But the owner does and I doubt they'd put money into making it more vagrant-proof and graffiti-free if they were going to tear it down in a matter of days or even weeks.

I'll change my mind, of course, if and when a demolition permit appears on this building like the ones on 355, 375 and the building next door (between 375 and 399). But so far nada and I'm wondering why.

Well, Brian Kendall posted this on the 45 Lansing thread a week or so ago:

"Thanks BTnSF for the clarification of addresses. I've mentioned a couple times here that I walked by the buildings there on Saturday 5/25/07 the day after the demo notices were posted. There was a demo notice posted on the Harrison Street side of 399 Fremont when I walked by that day (I've been referring to it here as 375 Fremont but realize it was posted on 399.) The permit must have been pulled down by someone quickly thereafter. Either way its coming down soon and it will be so great to see those building demolished once and for all."

I can't confirm or deny this, as I didn't view the signs until approximately a week after they were posted, and I didn't see one at 399 Fremont, but I do take Brian's word for it.

Also, I don't think that graffiti removal is a huge expense. Are you sure it was the owners of the building and not the city doing the work?

roadwarrior · #48 Posted **Jun 22, 2007, 1:57 AM**

I also walked by today to take a close look at the barbed wire around 399 Fremont. While an argument can be made that this was the owner's attempt to prevent further graffiti, I think there's more to it than that. Since the shelter closed, homeless people have been sneaking in. The building gets boarded up, but they just find a way around it. I'm sure they've been making huge messes in there, but I don't want to find out first hand. Anyway, my point is that if they're planning a demolition in the near future, it would be wise to prevent the homeless people from entering the building any more so that you can ensure that there will be no other mess to clean before the demolition and that you can be sure that when you start bulldozing, you don't have people inside.

BTinSF · #49 Posted **Jun 22, 2007, 3:18 AM**

^^^I'm sure you are right that the razor wire is to keep out the homeless and you may also be right about the reason they care, but I still really would like to see a demo permit on that building like on its neighbors. Maybe somebody did rip it down. I know somebody ripped the one down from the red building next door--I put it back up as best I could one day.

CityKid · #50 Posted **Jul 18, 2007, 11:29 PM**

There is also more information including a fly through on the Fifield website: http://www.fifieldcompanies.com/

rocketman_95046 · #51 Posted **Jul 19, 2007, 12:37 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CityKid

There is also more information including a fly through on the Fifield website: http://www.fifieldcompanies.com/

I like how the Fifield site says, "construction "BEGAN" in November 2007"...

Reminiscence · #52 Posted **Jul 19, 2007, 6:54 AM**

Thanks for that link, it gives plenty more vantage points of the structure and its location. I was hoping for something else other than a flat roof, as is the case with many buildings in the city. However, I am still looking forward to the start of construction. Since the source indicates it is 41 stories, perhaps the title of the thread needs to be changed.

Reminiscence · #53 Posted **Jul 19, 2007, 7:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rocketman_95046

I like how the Fifield site says, "construction "BEGAN" in November 2007"...

I was thinking the same thing when I read through that. I just assumed they were very confident this was going to get built.

BTinSF · #54 Posted **Jul 19, 2007, 7:45 AM**

^^^Very nice site but, like all the other developer sites, they are in denial that their building is surrounded by other new buildings. One Rincon Hill just doesn't exist for them. But the notion that construction "began" in November is reassuring.

roadwarrior · #55 Posted **Jul 19, 2007, 8:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BTinSF

^^^Very nice site but, like all the other developer sites, they are in denial that their building is surrounded by other new buildings. One Rincon Hill just doesn't exist for them. But the notion that construction "began" in November is reassuring.

Keep in mind that the 90 day notice for demolition requires it to occur within the next month. While we can argue whether 399 Fremont was included on that list, the fact is that 375 and 385 definitely were.

BTinSF · #56 Posted **Jul 20, 2007, 12:02 AM**

^^^Demolition doesn't mean much, I don't believe. San Francisco is full of parking lots where demolition has occurred but nothing will be built for many years. It's always nice to see SOMETHING happen at these sites, including demolition, but SSP doesn't consider a building under construction until it's actually under construction and niether do I.

peanut gallery · #57 Posted **Sep 14, 2007, 11:51 PM**

I asked this question in the SF compilation thread not realizing everyone was already talking about it over here - doh!

The demolition permits have expired for this site. Does anyone know what's up? Is the project dead? Could they have asked for an extension?

roadwarrior · #58 Posted **Sep 15, 2007, 12:05 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by peanut gallery

I asked this question in the SF compilation thread not realizing everyone was already talking about it over here - doh!

The demolition permits have expired for this site. Does anyone know what's up? Is the project dead? Could they have asked for an extension?

The Fifieldco website indicates now that construction will begin in 2008. It was previously Nov 2007. I'd guess that the housing slowdown and mortgage crisis are to blame. I would love to see this project pushed forward, as I hate the current rundown homeless shelter and other decrepit buildings. I'd love to see another slender, sleek highrise puncture the skyline of Rincon Hill.

peanut gallery · #59 Posted **Sep 16, 2007, 3:49 PM**

Yeah, that block is rundown and mostly worthless. Although, I do like the one below. It would make for some cool lofts or something. But not at the expense of the Californian.

San Frangelino · #60 Posted **Oct 5, 2007, 2:28 PM**

From:http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranci...wscolumn1.html

Quote:

Friday, October 5, 2007
Fifield puts Rincon Hill condo parcel on the block
San Francisco Business Times - by J.K. Dineen and Ryan Tate

Fifield is bailing out on Rincon Hill.

The Chicago-based developer has put its condo tower site at 375-399 Fremont St. on the block, a parcel that is entitled for 393 units.

Industry sources say the property had been in contract for an astounding $62 million, which translates to $160,000 per buildable unit, but that the deal fell through.

Fifield spokeswoman Cheryl Bame said Fifield is negotiating with several builders but that the property has not been sold.