November 9, 2012
Neighborhood Scoop: 340 Fremont's Refined Design And Parking
As we first reported in September, the developers of 340 Fremont have filed for permits to build the 400-foot tower with over 300 new housing units on Rincon Hill. And if you were wishing for a refinement of the approved Heller-Manus tower and podium, you’ll be happy learn the design has been tweaked by Handel Architects, click the renderings to enlarge:
While the dwelling unit count has increased from 332 to 348, the number of proposed parking spaces has decreased from 332 to 269, with the vast majority in stackers.
The refined design will be presented to the Planning Commission next week.
∙ 340 Fremont Scoop: Building Permit Filed For 400-Foot Tower [SocketSite]
∙ 340 Fremont Seeks 12 More Months As Housing Recession Remains [SocketSite]
∙ New Developments: 340 – 350 Fremont [SocketSite]
First Published: November 9, 2012 12:30 PM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
Who are the developers? Still Archstone?
[Editor's Note: Archstone with Jackson Pacific.]
Posted by: B at November 9, 2012 12:35 PM
Still an obscene amount of new parking, but much better than before. Like the look.
Posted by: anon at November 9, 2012 12:48 PM
It's time for the City to start making it a requirement to do a survey one year after full occupancy to see how many vehicles are owned by the residents and where they store them.
Posted by: BobN at November 9, 2012 1:41 PM
In the first picture, what's the 1 story building on the corner?
Posted by: WH at November 9, 2012 1:50 PM
@BobN - the census already does this survey in two different forms:
1. Once every ten years through the regular census
2. Once every year through the ACS
Why do we need yet another layer of city bureaucracy to replicate what is already being done?
Posted by: anon at November 9, 2012 2:12 PM
It's nice to have a car even if you don't use it very often. I take the bus to work every day most days but still have a a two car garage with two cars in it. I use them when I need them.
Posted by: MarinaBoy at November 9, 2012 2:27 PM
Very nice. Much more classy than the previous renderings, which I feel compliments the surrounding architecture.
Posted by: taco taco at November 9, 2012 2:35 PM
^And that's totally cool for you. I've got a car too that I use quite often. Not sure what this has to do with the correct policy action for the city to pursue for this specific neighborhood?
Posted by: anon at November 9, 2012 2:36 PM
Anon, you are right. I just feel that the amount of parking spaces they are goign to have does not seem over the top.
I also love the new design and hope that they have a few larger units vs the normal, studio, 1 bedroom, and two bedroom. I would like to see a few three bedroom or two plus den built here.
Posted by: MarinaBoy at November 9, 2012 2:50 PM
This stretch of Fremont is one of the most depressing streets right now. This is good news.
With ORH Tower 2 going up across the street, Rincon Green completed, 45 Lansing, 201 Folsom about to begin, and plans for opposite corner on Fremont in process, this area is finally shaping up.
Posted by: Ian at November 9, 2012 3:53 PM
Why do we need yet another layer of city bureaucracy to replicate what is already being done?
They ask about cars in an annual census? There's an annual census?
If there is, fine, then tabulate and publish the number of residences, residents, parking places, and vehicles owned for these new developments once they're occupied. I suspect the data will prove that new developments under the current system provide woefully inadequate parking for the people who actually end up living in them.
Posted by: BobN at November 9, 2012 6:51 PM
So tired of this "too much parking spaces" rant. It's old news and it's boring.
Somebody is spending too much time over at Streetsblog, where cars are monsters and death machines.
Guess what? a lot of good citizens who also care about the planet use a car, and many have to.I don't see cars taking over the city.
Posted by: futurist at November 9, 2012 7:17 PM
...so the residents are going to own cars despite the lack of parking? Well, so what? Why do you care?
If street parking is the issue, there are perfectly good methods of regulating it and ensuring its availability. Use them.
Parking is an amenity like any other, and insisting that developments pile on expensive amenities will do nothing but make the resulting apartments more expensive. You may as well complain that pool-less condo buildings provide woefully inadequate pool access for swimmers who end up living there.
Posted by: Alai at November 10, 2012 3:32 AM
Love my car, but agreed that it's pointless for the city to force too many parking spots to be built. Seems that developers want fewer built, with so many younger folks eschewing cars entirely.
Posted by: Brutus at November 10, 2012 11:50 AM
There's also car rental services available in the city for when residents may need one.
Posted by: MichaelG at November 10, 2012 12:30 PM
The war on parking goes on. Planning and the SFMTA have been hijacked. Prima example: the face of the SFMTA for its much-despised new carpet-bombing-with-parking-meters insanity is none other than Andy Thornley, formerly a director at the SF Bicycle Coalition.
We need to take our town back.
Posted by: Stucco_Sux at November 10, 2012 8:01 PM
^the anti-free-market sentiment in this town is mind-numbing at times. I long for the day when all parking and driving is metered... (and yes, I'm a driver).
Posted by: anon at November 10, 2012 10:53 PM
And also start adding meters to all bike parking.
Posted by: futurist at November 12, 2012 9:19 AM
^Sure, as long as that's also market-priced.
Posted by: anon at November 12, 2012 10:13 AM
Huge improvement. Nice work, Handel.
Posted by: Turin at November 12, 2012 11:45 AM
I think there is a Direct coorlation of cars and heart disease.
Posted by: sf at November 12, 2012 5:36 PM
You mean people who get angry about too many car parking spaces are more apt to suffer from heart disease, not just heartburn? ;-)
Posted by: Dan Clark at November 12, 2012 5:44 PM
Is there nothing else interesting to discuss about the redesign except the number of parking spaces? I guess not, so here are my thoughts:
The city already limits parking in new housing developments downtown. Developers build parking spaces not because of parking mandates, but because the market demands them. Yes, more urban dwellers don't own cars than in years past, but there is still a high demand for parking spaces that goes unmet. Rather than the persistent effort to limit other people's travel options, it would be nice instead to make public transit more attractive, which would cause more people to use it. I personally ride Muni every day to go to work, and my husband and I use it on the weekends when going out to dinner or going to a movie or play. Yes, Muni is better than the almost non-existent public transit in a city such as Indianapolis, but it is a crappy experience for most Muni riders, including myself, and it is a lousy system considering the amount of money the city spends on it. I don't know what the answer is to improve Muni--whether it is to fund it with yet more tax money or just implement a different management, but I would gladly support any option to get a better riding experience and to bring in more public transit users.
So, yes, if Muni were improved more people would use it and drive less. However, people still would own a car and they would need a place to keep, and street parking not only wastes space that could go to bike lanes or wider sidewalks, but it also cannot offer enough space for all the cars. Like many people in the city, my husband and I own a car, even though we regularly use MUNI. My husband, like many SF residents, works outside of the city, and there is no viable public transit method for him to get to work. He used every route planner available and realized his commute on public transit would be 2 HOURS minimum. Also, it is nice to have a car available for certain errands, road trips, and to visit friends in the Bay Area without having to set aside an additional hour or more to figure out a way to get to them via public transit. So, yes, people living in condos with garages, like myself, do have cars and we do use them, but we also frequently use public transit AND walk (in fact, I bet I walk more than anyone posting on this site). And, so, we chose a building with a parking garage for residents, and we paid more for our unit, AND we also pay a very hefty monthly parking maintenance fee--there is no such thing as free parking.
That said, I support bike lanes and have no gripe with people who want to promote walking and/or biking, except when they want to make driving not just slightly less convenient, but purposefully a pain-in-the-ass without offering real alternatives. I already ride MUNI to work, so don't preach to me about that. But, my husband has no way to bike to work or to take public transit, and and that is the reality for many SF residents. As I said, I would be glad to support any options, including tax hikes, to improve public transit, but I think those options should be implemented FIRST before promoting efforts to make driving more difficult and just hoping people will abandon their cars. When you see several thousands of drivers willing to sit at a dead-stand-still on 101 for long periods of time everyday, then you know that just making driving inconvenient, even very inconvenient, will not persuade people to give up their cars unless they are given a viable alternative.
Posted by: Chris at November 16, 2012 12:38 AM
^No one's taking your car away. We're talking about new developments. If someone needs a parking spot, they won't buy or rent in a development that doesn't contain parking. Make sense?
Posted by: anon at November 16, 2012 7:28 AM
Posted by: SocketSite at December 30, 2013 3:40 PM