Somerville is currently evaluating two redevelopment proposals for 90 Washington Street, a four-acre site in the Inner Belt district near the MBTA’s East Somerville Green Line station. According to the Boston Business Journal, the decision is being made under meaningful financial pressure, with the city looking to recoup a roughly $30 million gap tied to its acquisition of the property.
While this is a single-site decision, it reflects a broader strategic question facing many urban markets: how aggressively to capitalize on well-located, transit-oriented land in a high-demand environment.
At the center of that question are two materially different proposals.
Proposal A: High-Density, Mixed-Use Activation (North River Leerink)
The North River Leerink plan represents a large-scale, transit-oriented development strategy. The proposal includes a fourteen-story tower and a six-story structure, delivering up to 600 residential units. It also incorporates a full-service grocery component, supported by smaller-format retail, food and beverage users, and service-oriented tenants. Additional programming includes an arts center and publicly accessible open space.
From a market perspective, the strength of this proposal lies in how efficiently it utilizes the site. Delivering approximately 600 units in a supply-constrained region would represent a meaningful addition to the housing stock, particularly given the site’s transit access. At the same time, the inclusion of a full-service grocery tenant introduces a critical anchor use—one that tends to generate consistent, daily foot traffic and can support leasing velocity for adjacent retail.
This combination of density and retail activation would position the project as more than a residential asset. Instead, it would function as a mixed-use node, creating both internal demand from residents and external draw from the surrounding area. That dynamic has direct implications for long-term asset value, as well as for municipal tax generation, which is especially important given the city’s financial position.
However, the scale that drives this upside also introduces complexity. A fourteen-story component represents a notable increase in density relative to much of the surrounding fabric, and projects at this scale typically require more extensive entitlement work and public engagement. That can translate into longer approval timelines and a higher likelihood of design revisions. From an execution standpoint, the project carries greater uncertainty, particularly in a market where large-scale developments are closely scrutinized.
Proposal B: Mid-Scale, Market-Aligned Development (Wood Partners)
The Wood Partners proposal takes a more measured, mid-rise approach. The plan consists of a seven-story building with approximately 324 residential units, supported by around 15,000 square feet of retail space and a smaller allocation of community-oriented program space. The building is organized around a central parking component and reflects a more conventional multifamily development model.
The appeal of this proposal is rooted in its alignment with typical urban development patterns. At seven stories, the project is more likely to be perceived as consistent with surrounding scale, which can reduce friction during the approval process. In practical terms, this often results in a more predictable entitlement timeline and fewer structural changes during review.
From a development perspective, the project also benefits from simplicity. Compared to a larger mixed-use program with multiple moving pieces, a mid-scale residential building with supporting retail tends to be more straightforward to finance, construct, and deliver. That predictability can be a meaningful advantage, particularly in environments where timing and execution certainty are critical.
The tradeoff, however, is a more limited overall impact. Delivering roughly half the number of units reduces the project’s contribution to housing supply and, by extension, its potential economic output. The retail component, while still additive, is less likely to function as a regional draw without a dominant anchor tenant. As a result, the project would likely operate as a well-executed residential building with supporting commercial space, rather than as a destination-oriented mixed-use development.
From the city’s perspective, that distinction matters. A smaller project inherently generates less tax revenue, which may limit its ability to meaningfully offset the financial gap associated with the property.
The Strategic Decision
At its core, the decision facing Somerville is less about design and more about positioning. One proposal seeks to fully leverage the site’s transit access and scale, prioritizing density, retail activation, and long-term economic output. The other emphasizes manageability, offering a more predictable path to delivery and closer alignment with existing development patterns.
Both approaches are credible. The high-density proposal reflects a long-term growth strategy, maximizing the potential of a well-located site but accepting greater execution risk in the process. The mid-scale proposal prioritizes certainty, reducing complexity and likely accelerating delivery, but with a lower ceiling in terms of overall impact.
The implications of this decision extend beyond the site itself. The Inner Belt area is already transitioning, and the outcome here will influence how aggressively similar sites are pursued in the future.
A higher-density development could accelerate the area’s evolution into a more urban, transit-oriented corridor, reinforcing the viability of larger mixed-use projects. A mid-scale outcome, while still positive, would suggest a more incremental approach to growth, where development progresses in smaller, more predictable steps.
For investors, tenants, and brokerage professionals active in Somerville, the city’s choice will provide a clear signal on its appetite for density and redevelopment intensity in key submarkets.
This is ultimately a tradeoff between upside and certainty. The higher-density proposal offers greater long-term economic potential but comes with added complexity and execution risk. The mid-scale proposal provides a more controlled path forward but with a more limited impact.
According to the Boston Business Journal, a decision is expected in the near term. Whichever direction the city chooses will not only determine the outcome of this project, but also set a precedent for how Somerville approaches future development opportunities in transit-oriented locations.