2092 3rd Street

Exploratory plans to raze the two-story Dogpatch building on the northwest corner of Third and 18th Streets, home to the Moshi Moshi Cocktail and Sushi bar since 1987, have been submitted to San Francisco’s Planning Department for review.

As proposed, a six-story building with 18 residential units over 3,000 square feet of retail space would rise on the site, along with parking for 13 cars and 18 bikes.

2092 3rd Street Design

We’ll note that the proposed ground floor retail space was designed with food service in mind, which could mean a return of Moshi Moshi should the development proceed as proposed.  We’ll keep you posted and plugged-in.

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by jose

    bye bye south facing property line windows on the lofts next door

    • Posted by Wai Yip Tung

      If you want south facing window move over next door. Why would they put in property line windows in the first place?

      • Posted by Rockne

        @Wai Yip Tung
        So you have a better understanding:
        The Planning Department encouraged, as a condition for approval when several third street loft buildings were approved originally, south facing windows. You can pull the plans and Department changes yourself if you don’t believe.

        Now the same department is ignoring their mess in favor of larger development money and seating the interest of unsuspecting homeowners and buyers second. Believe me as a homeowner and homeowner’s group that fought recently the lack of disclosure docs from the city, it’s not so simple as your assertion “why would they put in property line windows in the first place?”
        @foggydunes:
        Are you a property owner?
        It’s not dramatic to have a significant reduction in real estate value as a result of loosing the majority of a units light and air, which by the way is supposed to be protected under the departments own code; read the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan, in particular the relevant points that protect neighboring properties form adverse impacts on air and light, etc, with a rear yard setback percentage that’s not being met.

        And, keep in mind that many of us homeowners–teachers, artist, civil servants–were the first into this “transitional” neighborhood, working with the city to develop crime watch programs, green the street and sidewalks, plant community gardens, support mom-and-pop retail, remake community parks, etc.

        Now the city, together with developers and the help from misplaced sentiments like yours, are taking advantage of a thriving and vibrant community we fought to create simply because it’s “trendy” and the rents command on average 4,500.00 – 5,000.00 per month for 1-2 bedroom.

        Consider a greater number of facts before you or others throw out catch-phrases like “dramatic,” or “get used to it.” For the record, I’m not against development in San Francisco, just the absolute lack of design, architecture, and ingenuity in incorporating new with historic/existing that our city used to be renowned for. Our historic Waterfront and Dogpatch district is being transformed with East Bay and suburban structures and architecture that has no parallel within our historic corridor, i.e. 2121 Third St.–take a look when you have a chance.

        • Posted by Wai Yip Tung

          @Rockne,

          Planning department encourage south facing windows? That’s not very reassuring. Have they made any promises on future of the property to the south?

  2. Posted by techdestroyseverything

    @jose, Typical Manhattan condition. You get used to it. Toodles suburban SF, Hello Manhattafrisco!

  3. Posted by FoggyDunes

    A building adds four stories and we’re suddenly Manhattan? Talk about dramatic. All cities evolve over time. You get used to it.

  4. Posted by Joseph A

    The issue with some parts of San Francisco has little to do with updating buildings with a few floors , but more so because with the exception of parts of the SOMA , the facades are not being preserved

  5. Posted by Rick

    Another crappy condo. So sad to lose our character, our middle class, our “breathing room” just to satisfy the greed of developers and politicians. We do not have an obligation to overpopulate this City, no matter what ABAG says. The new urbanism TOD lie has gone viral, pushed by SPUR and it’s bevy of special interest “coalitions”. There is still time to push back to save San Francisco.

    • Posted by CrockPot

      Yeah, if you invent a time machine and travel back to 1855, there is still time.

    • Posted by jill

      move to the west [side]. plenty of breathing room west of fillmore

    • Posted by formidable doer of the nasty

      So the “middle class” is in the sushi restaurant? Or in the four stories of thin air that will now be replaced by residences?

  6. Posted by anon

    This makes me a little sad – I’ve been going to Moshi Moshi for the last 25 years, ever since I was a kid.

    • Posted by formidable doer of the nasty

      Maybe if they move back into the new building they can finally get a 100 health score.

  7. Posted by mike

    people buying units with lot line windows typically were required to sign a document acknowledging that those windows could be taken away if/when the adjacent parcel was developed. most people in this situation conveniently forgot that they were told this or say they were not aware of why they were signing.

  8. Posted by Lanny Dean

    @anon: The owner of Moshi Moshi, Mitsuru, has every intention of re-opening Moshi Moshi in the new space. Come by Moshi and he will tell you all about it.

    @formidable: Moshi Moshi has a 100 health score posted.

Add a Comment

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