It’s a plugged-in tipster that first caught the construction equipment arriving on the 399 Fremont site yesterday, but it’s not for the Californian to start rising. No, it’s actually to shore up the property line and prepare for the excavation of 333 Fremont upon which the 8-story residential building rendered above (click to enlarge) will rise.
First permitted in 2005, the 333 Fremont site is entitled for 83 condos averaging 803 square feet over three levels of underground parking.
399 Fremont: From Condos To Rentals And Flowers For Another Year [SocketSite]
An 8 Month Extension For 8 Stories And 88 Units At 333 Fremont [SocketSite]

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by gellan

    Great infill.

  2. Posted by Turin

    Great news. Hopefully, the start of bigger things to come on Rincon Hill.

  3. Posted by lol

    Anyone wanna bet they’ll call both last 2 floors “penthouse level”?

  4. Posted by Fishchum

    lol – so what if they do?

  5. Posted by Snark17

    Nice clean design.

  6. Posted by lol

    Fishchum, just pointing to a very annoying trend in marketing.
    For most the penthouse is one sole apartment on the very last floor. For salesmen it’s 2 or 3 floors with several units per floor which completely dilutes the value of the feature (alone-on-the-top-of-the-world is not one-floor-down-the-top-of-the-world-plus-you-share-the-floor-like-evry-other-dweller). Looks like a marketing gimmick to me to sell an above average place as luxury.
    But we’ll see how they market these units.

  7. Posted by Mole Man

    The top units are nicely set back with good deck areas. Agents could call them magic and probably not be far off.

  8. Posted by BernalDweller

    “averaging 803 square feet”
    Holy tiny condos, Batman.

  9. Posted by lol

    Agents could call them magic and probably not be far off.
    Imagine that. So much luxury! Being able to poke your nose out and enjoy fresh air and the gorgeous industrial landscape = magic.

  10. Posted by Jeff

    Looks like the place is crawling with ghosts.. Too scary, no thanks.

  11. Posted by Willow

    I like the design and scale of this building. Too bad that many of the units are going to be on the small side. Honestly, I’m surprised there aren’t more 2bd/2bth only buildings in the city. (SF BLU is the only one that I’m aware of.)
    While the area is currently unattractive, this location is far enough away from the Bay Bridge where traffic and noise is not as significant as say for instance One Rincon, The Watermark or Bay Crest.

  12. Posted by Joe

    800 sq ft is small?

  13. Posted by lol

    The masses next door are not actual buildings, are they? It would be interesting to know what are the plans for the adjacent lots.
    And about 800sf and whether it’s small or not, I know of quite a few newcomers who have very painful readjustments, like moving a 2500sf house into a 1000sf condo and doubling their housing expenses for the privilege of trading down.
    Heck, you can get a 3800sf house with a pool for the price of a 400sf studio on Van Ness.

  14. Posted by Rillion

    Having moved from a rented 2bd/1ba that was 625 square feet into a 816 sq ft 2/1, it is small but livable.

  15. Posted by Fischum

    lol – what part of “Las Vegas, NV” and “Van Ness Avenue” are you having trouble telling the difference between?

  16. Posted by lol

    Fischum, I am simply putting things into prospective for the debate over how big is 800sf. For seasoned SF-ers 800sf is a typical nice starter home. For regular Americans the money required to purchase this kind of condo in SF brings out a massive ticker shock. And you get to stare at a blank industrial wasteland.
    If this building yelds 800/sf or more, this will mean 560K and for 560K you can buy a 20 acre rather nice horse ranch house in Montana I am pretty sure the seller will throw in a couple of horses into the deal.
    Anyway, my Friday musings.

  17. Posted by fishchum

    lol – I apologize if I sound abrasive, but I’m so sick of hearing “Wow! Do you know how much $$$ buys you in (insert city here)?”
    Most cities are very different, and comparing them is often futile and pointless. San Francisco is expensive. We get it.

  18. Posted by lol

    Comparing goes a long way into explaining some of the frustration newcomers are experiencing. Some people come from wealthy areas of other locales and move here to be stacked into the lower-middle class. The re-adjustment is painful. Is it better to be first in your village or second in Rome?

  19. Posted by shza

    lol, no one was talking about “newcomers” or questioning the reasons for their alleged frustration. It’s a non sequitur introduced by you.
    As a relatively non-newcomer who lived previously in NYC and Boston, I think 800 sq ft is small too.

  20. Posted by Brahma (incensed renter)

    But how much more expensive is it? The average home price of $808,481 (as of summer 2011) in the San Francisco metropolitan area exceeds the national average by nearly $650,000, the third most expensive in the U.S. and the second in the continental United States.
    Unless someone locating here has preexisting wealth (what was that person owning a horse ranch in Montana doing for income before coming here?), the move from some other part of the country with lower housing costs would be a poor financial decision unless one was taking a job with a substantial marginal pay increase. That’s why a lot of big companies pay for their high level employees’ housing costs when relocating them here.

  21. Posted by anon

    Funny how not too long ago people were commenting that Rincon Hill would not see any new development for, what, a decade? LOL.
    There are cranes going up all over the place these days…I will not be surpised to see ORH tower II begin construction before the end of the year.

  22. Posted by clark

    Great, right between the off ramp and on ramp. What a fantastic place to walk around in the evening and enjoy city life. So much to do on the weekend also…. best of luck living there.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles