2121 3rd Street Site (www.SocketSite.com)
Currently a commercial fueling and storage facility adjacent to the 20 units at 700 Illinois, and stretching from Illinois to Third, as proposed a six-story, 68-foot building consisting of approximately 106 rental units and 80 parking spaces would rise at 2121 Third Street.
2121 3rd Street Rendering
Despite “a dozen comments in opposition on the proposed project from members of the public…focused on dwelling unit density, lack of parking and the number of exceptions requested” for the project, the Planning Department recommends an approved by San Francisco’s Planning Commission this afternoon.

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by JL

    A unit at 700 Illinois was shown on an episode of “House Hunters.” The prospective buyers were justifiably somewhat hesitant about living next to fuel storage facility in an “up and coming” neighborhood.
    They ultimately ended up buying that unit, so I can only assume they’d be happy to see the fuel tanks go.

  2. Posted by badlydrawnbear

    Lack of parking is a complaint? The T-Line practically stops in front of the building! You have virtually door front access to Muni, BART, and Cal Train.
    Complaints about density, again? The whole point of urban living IS density. If you hate density you shouldn’t be living in the second most densely populated urban area in the US in the first place!!!
    Approved!

  3. Posted by Michael

    “Lack of parking is a complaint?”
    It is when you live in the neighborhood and park on the street.

  4. Posted by gellan

    Approve, build, and then build about 30-40 more (preferably taller) of these along Third.

  5. Posted by lyqwyd

    @Michael
    Then you should be supporting no parking. This way it encourages people who do not own cars to buy in this building. If there’s more parking then there’s more people with cars buying, and thus more competition for street parking.

  6. Posted by badlydrawnbear

    there are 80 parking spaces for 106 units. That’s quite a lot of parking IMHO.

  7. Posted by Jimmy (No Longer Bitter)

    1:1 ratio of parking plus about 10 spaces for visitors or overnight guests. Minimum. Ideal would be about 5 stories of underground parking thereby solving the local street parking issue and bringing in needed revenue to the building.

  8. Posted by curmudgeon

    Jimmy…there are local street parking issues? ????

  9. Posted by Mr. E.

    Use of the word “density” is deliberate obfuscation of the actual complaint – the units are small and impossible for families to work. Further, no ground floor retail is contemplated. So what you get is a bunch of residential turnover and no interface for the rest of the neighborhood.

  10. Posted by HereWeGoAgain

    Do architects have no imagination for SF? Another boxy shoebox box of a design. Did I say boxy yet?

  11. Posted by Snark17

    Glad it was approved and that a few whiners weren’t enough to derail this reasonable project. Need more housing down here.

  12. Posted by Modernqueen

    Right on Jimmy! I support 1:1 parking + guest parking as well.
    This whole bike-centric way of forcing everyone to live is pure BS.
    Yea, like I’m gonna use my bike to take my family up the coast for a weekend.
    Like I’m gonna ride my bike to Tahoe to go skiing.
    Like I’m gonna use my bike to haul home new furniture I just bought from IKEA. Yea, right.
    Bikes can be fun. Bikes can be used by a few. Bikes are not gonna rule the world.
    Yea, right.

  13. Posted by LD

    I’m thinking its better looking than that one at Daggett Place at least. More cohesive and not covered with flavors of the month design, let the green walls and the swiss cheese window wall.

  14. Posted by Alai

    Skiing, vacations and hauling furniture are the reason rental cars and carshare were invented.
    I’m convinced that if there’s to be any improvement in the parking situation, street parking policy has to be overhauled. In particular, the practice of issuing 6000 permits for 5000 spaces and expecting everything to work out has to end.

  15. Posted by Mr. E.

    @ Snark17: Do you live down in the Dogpatch/Potrero Hill Area?
    No one reasonable thinks we don’t need housing on the Third Street Corridor. The question is about the type of housing. Shoeboxes for itinerant tech workers that also fail to add to the neighborhood streetscape (e.g. retail) are not what the neighborhood needs.
    This is a project planned back when throwing up bare-bones, tiny condos penciled out. How it has been allowed to continue without change in our new normal is absurd.
    This is a project planned back when throwing up crappy condos penciled out. How it has been allowed to continue without change in our new environment is absurd.

  16. Posted by anon

    ^These are not condos, these are rentals. And yes, there is a BOOMING market for small rentals right now and will likely continue to be.

  17. Posted by Mr. E.

    The point still stands.

  18. Posted by Bryan

    We live across the street from this as home owners and while we support the growth in our neighborhood, the need for new buildings to contribute to the neighborhood is critical, from aesthetics to functional (i.e. street level retail spaces, as well as parking).
    It is sad to see the city planning commission lack any thought to this city, they really should be fired. This building is going to be an epic fail, just like the horrible one on the corner 3rd and 19th.
    Also, for all the people proclaiming the T line stopping right in front. The T line SUCKS! It takes on average 45 minutes to get downtown. If there is a ball game, which is all the time, forget it.

  19. Posted by curmudgeon

    On the issue of ground floor retail – Unfortunately, 3rd Street in both dogpatch (and also in mission bay) has been planned as a transit, but not a retail street. Retail uses are required ground floor uses for more internal streets like 22nd in Dogpatch, but only on some corners along 3rd. It’s unfortunate and unusual…the transit street usually is also the retail street… but it is partly a consequence of how much space it took to provide a right of way for the T line PLUS two travel lanes in each direction. Sidewalks here are not generous, and not conducive to the kind of neighborhood retail street you would like to see. All in all, 3rd street is not pleasant for a pedestrian. But this project is meeting the objectives of current plans, which would allow but not require retail uses on the ground floor.

  20. Posted by Mr. E.

    ^ Yes, the current plans are flawed.

  21. Posted by dogfella

    why is SF architecture so uninspired?

  22. Posted by sfrenegade

    “why is SF architecture so uninspired?”
    Because everyone feels that they deserve input on the matter, and the city institutionalizes that belief.

  23. Posted by lurker

    Agree with Bryan.
    I live in Dogpatch and take the T to downtown three days a week. On two out of the three days of the week, there are issues. Just today, the train I was on sat still on third for 15 minutes due to signal issues. One train sat a block ahead of us, two more sat behind us. This happens _all the time_. Trains get stuck in the tunnels. Can’t count how many times I’ve stood for 25 minutes or so in the Montgomery station waiting for my train home.
    MUNI is so bad, sometimes I think they should just pack it all up and go home. I’d never take the T if I had to get to work at a fixed time.
    I’d vastly prefer to take public everywhere and dump my car, but until things improve, that just isn’t going to happen. After spending a week in NYC for work and taking their transit everyday, my tolerance for MUNI at the moment is at an all time low.
    With respect to this building, I don’t have any major complaints but really wish there were some space for retail on the ground floor. At the same time, seeing as there’s quite a bit of empty retail/restaurant space in Dogpatch right now, I can understand the decision to go without.

  24. Posted by Dan

    It’s an easy flat bike ride on a path by the bay from the Central Waterfront to the Embarcadero– it takes just a few minutes– much faster than the T.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *