SAN FRANCISCO | One Rincon (Tower One) | 641 FT / 195 M | 60 FLOORS

[briankendall]

I am fairly certain that they are indeed 1,900-2,350. That is what I remember when I was at the sales office looking at plans.

[pseudolus]

OK, this is really bizarre:

The Curbed SF Ugly Building Contest: Bigger, Longer, Unfinished
Monday, April 2, 2007, by Philip


A three judge panel got together for breakfast on Sunday and decided which building in San Francisco deserved to be called the ugliest. There are lots of ugly buildings here. After a bucket of Blue Bottle coffee (Nicaraguan single roast, French Press) we voted. The readers made it easy- turns out there was just one winner. Thanks to all of you who took the interest and time to participate.

And the winner is: Richard Tuck! He wins a gift card to In N'Out Burger.

Richard and our panel both chose One Rincon Hill, after giving it a special dispensation for not being finished.

Oh, there's nothing wrong with big. But big and banal in bronze and beige, not so wonderful. Doesn't look so big? It's not even half-high yet. It will more than double the height in the picture, which was taken today from Bryant & Third Streets, and pop out of the top of your monitor. Or the back of your head. What's really wrong with the building is that people will associate big with ugly, and we'll lose out on the starchitecture project pipeline developing in the Transbay neighborhood. And yes, it's way too close to the Bay Bridge.

Close, but no cigars:

The "Wurlitzer" Marriot on Market Street: demonstrating the ability of humans to carry multi-year grudges. We have to agree that even when Post Modern is revived in twenty years this one still won't look good, and if we'd held an un-popularity contest, the Marriot would have won and we'd go broke giving out prizes.

The Soma Grand: next to the new Federal Building, condemned for its banality, "looks like a college dorm."

The San Francisco Museum of Modern Art: let's just say someone really, really doesn't like it- just one person, however.

One person dislikes the De Young!

Fox Plaza, circa 1963: condemned for its design, for what it replaced (the very grand Fox Theatre) and for it's welcoming, sophisticated street-level amenities.

Heller-McManus: Anything designed by Heller-McManus! Which was spot-on, but a little broad.

No love for 88 King, which should be in Fort Worth.

The Milton Bernstein Building: it may be ugly, but no photo was attached. It was either get in the car and drive, or have huevos rancheros. Disqualified. Breakfast wins again.



http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2007/0...unfinished.php

[BTinSF]

^^^These people are idiots. The ugliest building in San Francisco is and always will be (until they tear it down, hopefully soon) the Burton Federal Building on Golden Gate Ave.

[FourOneFive]

^ sorry honey Fox Plaza takes the cake.

[Reminiscence]

April's approximate progress:

[kenratboy]

^^^

What the hell is right!? What a bunch of lame people, I bet they worship Consumer Reports.

[Reminiscence]

They're not even close to topping off and they're already talking. They should give it a chance at least. After its done, they can critisize it all they want.

[mthd]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

^^^These people are idiots. The ugliest building in San Francisco is and always will be (until they tear it down, hopefully soon) the Burton Federal Building on Golden Gate Ave.

idiots? maybe, maybe not, but when you do something much much much bigger than your neighbors (even the much maligned federal building is closer in scale to the context than one rincon) there is a much higher bar to clear. very few people who are not skyscraper or development groupies think one rincon is an attractive building so far.

i wouldn't care what 'people' think (they are generally uninformed about architecture and tend to 'like' things that become dated very quickly) except that there's a very real chance that the horror of one rincon will cause them to mobilize against other, hopefully better, tall buildings in san francisco.

[BTinSF]

^^^There are reasons to object to it indeed. I agree that it is bold in ways likely to jolt the average San Franciscan and maybe even make him spill his latte, but no way is it as ugly as the Burton Building. "Ugly" is one thing. Striking, intrusive, even challenging are others. Burton is ugly. One Rincon is something else.


Besides, it's more than a little idiotic to take "ugly building" debates seriously.

[rocketman_95046]

There is really no way to determine if this building is ugly until all the other Rincon hill highrises are built.

Its attractiveness will most likely depend entirely on the context that surrounds it. To judge the building now (one big building that will stick out like a sore thumb) is really premature.

[Frisco_Zig]

Originally Posted by kenratboy

^^^

What the hell is right!? What a bunch of lame people, I bet they worship Consumer Reports.

I don't have an opinion on the design really (though it doesn’t do much for me) the finished bld is going to dominate the sky when finished. Not sure I agree with the strategy of approving the outlying location in a new high rise neighborhood first in a city like SF. I fear people are going to wake up and fight when they see this thing finished, totally out of context literally next to the Bay Bridge

[Dogpatch]

When the neighborhood gets built out (actually built up) around it, One Rincon will be the "trademark" Rincon Hill neighbhorhood building. Until then, it will definitely seem out of scale, and will receive plenty of criticism from people who are unable to visualize the neighborhood at completion. This will be a highrise neighborhood after all. It just so happens that one of the first buildings completed here will also be the tallest. If it were the last building built in a highrise hood, nobody would bat an eye.

[SFObserver]

Shot taken from the plaza at 560 Mission Street, with the site of 555 Mission across the street and One Rincon in the distance.


Taken from the front doorway of 560 Mission looking south.

[kenratboy]

Originally Posted by Dogpatch

When the neighborhood gets built out (actually built up) around it, One Rincon will be the "trademark" Rincon Hill neighbhorhood building. Until then, it will definitely seem out of scale, and will receive plenty of criticism from people who are unable to visualize the neighborhood at completion. This will be a highrise neighborhood after all. It just so happens that one of the first buildings completed here will also be the tallest. If it were the last building built in a highrise hood, nobody would bat an eye.

Yup, this isn't Sim City, we cannot place everything all at once, things happen one at a time as part of a master plan.

[innov8]

Originally Posted by Reminisence

Socketsite Says:

One Rincon Hill Tower One: Floor Facts

For future (and perhaps current) reference, let’s get the facts straight with regard to the first tower of One Rincon Hill. The tower will rise fifty-five (55) stories above grade (not including the rooftop stabilizing water tank) with five (5) levels of parking below.

Floors are numbered one (1) through sixty (60) with the first level of underground parking being floor number one. The ground level lobby is located on floor number six (6), floor number seven (7) houses building amenities, and residences are located on floors eight (8) through sixty (60).

The bad news: If you’re looking to live ten stories above the top of the hill, you’ll actually want to find a condo on floor fifteen (15). The good news: If you should somehow crash through a window on the “sixth floor,” you won’t have far to fall.

Originally Posted by Reminisence

Oh no, not again. Haha, we need a new format here, from now on do we include those below grade floors or not?

I was reading the conversation about the towers floor count on the other page and now I'm confused?
Is the tower really 55 stories with 5 underground floors but you guys are
counting the basement floors into the towers total floor count to make it 60?

I've never seen a towers total floor count also count the basement. Is this just a
SF thing or is this a new system in counting skyscrapers final floor count.

I work in a 14 story building but it has 2 below grade basement levels... doe's
this really mean I'm in a 16 story building?

[plinko]

^I'm having the same issue Innov8. IIRC, below grade floors aren't typically counted towards a building's height (at least statistically). It goes against the whole way towers are measured, which is from the street entrance rather than the below grade foundation.

If so I guess the WTC had 116 floors and Chase Manhattan has 72?

[botoxic]

The street facade faces Harrison and consists of the low-rise portion of the building that contains the townhomes. The lower five floors are only underground in the rear portion of the building which contains the tower.

At the corner of the building closest to First and Harrison, the floor facing the street looks to be level 3 (or perhaps 2 - it's hard to tell from the rendering). As you make your way down the hill along Harrison Street, you'll eventually be standing at level 1 before the second tower begins.

[Reminiscence]

^^^

Yes, I've heard it was depicted in that format. It all has to do with the vantage point of the building. If we had a One Rincon Hill view from say, the top of the westernmost bay bridge tower looking down, perhaps we'll see it from its first true floor.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by innov8

I was reading the conversation about the towers floor count on the other page and now I'm confused?
Is the tower really 55 stories with 5 underground floors but you guys are
counting the basement floors into the towers total floor count to make it 60?

I've never seen a towers total floor count also count the basement. Is this just a
SF thing or is this a new system in counting skyscrapers final floor count.

The others are right. This is a hard building to say exactly what is its "height". It's built into the side of a hill (does that make it "an SF thing"?). The tower part is at the top of the hill, but the podium that faces the major street (Harrison) is lower down the hill (probably about 3 floors lower.

Anyway, the occupiable floors of the tower go 55 stories above the ground at the tower's base but about 57 or 58 stories above Harrison St. Then there's the 3-story water tank on top (to stabilize the structure in high winds). Adding that in, you actually get 60 stories (or more) but we've chosen to be conservative and go for an even 60.

[innov8]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

Then there's the 3-story water tank on top (to stabilize the structure in high winds). Adding that in, you actually get 60 stories (or more) but we've chosen to be conservative and go for an even 60.

Okay, I now understand adding the 3 lower floors that are built into the hill
side into the final total, but adding the 3 story water tank into the count is
a stretch. I mean really, should mechanical floors that are several stories
also be taken into high-rises total floor count? In Sacramento, 621CM has
25 floors and a mechanical floor on top that is two floors. Should it now be
considered 27 stories under the Rincon Tower rule that 3 floors of water
storage is now being used as the total floor count?

Why doe’s it have to be complicated like this? The tower should be 58 floors at 641’.