As the Somernova development barrels toward approval in Somerville with the promise of transforming a quiet industrial campus into 1.6 million square feet of commercial, research and so-called innovation space, it’s worth asking a basic question: Who is this for?
I became aware of the proposal last October, when the city announced a series of public meetings to discuss proposed zoning changes. At the very first session, a senior city staff member asked me to move to the back of the room. The front, they said, was “reserved for stakeholders.” The irony wasn’t lost on me: I live within 30 feet of the project site and had introduced myself as a direct abutter. But somehow, I wasn’t considered a stakeholder. That moment stayed with me.
I’ve lived in Somerville for years. I’ve walked these blocks, watched triple-deckers turn into condos and seen the arrival of high-end coffee shops, new rail stations and growing corporate footprints. Change is part of life here, and I’m not opposed to it. In fact, transformative change is needed to build the affordable housing Somerville desperately needs and to create space for new enterprises. If that change happens in my backyard, so be it. But residents and longtime community members deserve a voice in what that change looks like. And from my very first meeting, it’s felt like we’ve been quietly, consistently told to sit down and stay out of the way.
Public process meets private interest
The irony is that we’ve already had this conversation – at length. When Somerville overhauled its zoning ordinance in 2019, it followed nearly a decade of workshops, working groups and public hearings. It was, in other words, a public process. The resulting code emphasized clarity and predictability. It prioritized height and density near major transit hubs. Not in the middle of residential neighborhoods.
Now, just a few years later, a single project seeks to bypass that work entirely.
The proposed Somernova redevelopment covers 7.4 acres between Union and Porter squares. It would introduce buildings up to 200 feet tall into a neighborhood defined largely by triple-deckers and modest apartment buildings. It would replace the city’s Fabrication District, zoning initially intended to preserve old industrial spaces for artists and makers, with zoning that does little to protect either. Just 8 percent of the site would be reserved for arts-related uses, and even that figure can be negotiated down. Gone is the emphasis on adaptive reuse and local creativity. In its place: glass towers, corporate R&D and a developer-led master plan positioned as a hub for climate-focused and so-called tough-tech enterprises.
And the timing is curious: Commercial real estate is still facing headwinds, and even as climate-focused enterprises gain urgency, public and private investment in tough-tech continues to retrench.
The developer seeks a tailor-made zoning overlay that would sidestep many of the public review mechanisms that typically apply to developments of this scale. It would enshrine the developer’s preferences into the city’s zoning code – without offering a detailed final plan. And once granted, this zoning relief isn’t easily undone. With their real estate value dramatically increased by the upzoning, the developer could revise the project or sell it altogether. The city loses its leverage the moment it rewrites the rules.
When housing means hotels
One provision deserves special attention. The proposed ordinance reclassifies “lodging” (think hotels and motels) as residential housing. That language matters. Under the Massachusetts Housing Choice Act, zoning amendments that include residential uses can pass with a simple majority – just six of 11 city councilor votes – instead of the two-thirds supermajority typically required. The inclusion of lodging as residential housing in this overlay triggers that threshold. The result is a faster, quieter path to approval for a project that will reshape an entire section of the city, and without the kind of consensus-building or scrutiny that similar efforts once demanded and without requiring the developer to build a single residential housing unit.
Growth deserves a public mandate
Concerns about this approach – and the project more broadly – have been voiced by the city’s own appointed experts. In an August letter to the Planning Board and City Council, the Somerville Urban Design Commission, a panel of design professionals, warned that the plan prioritizes building mass over open space, pushes public areas to the margins and risks establishing a precedent for density in the Somerville Avenue corridor, all without sufficient public debate. Their concerns are not abstract; they speak directly to how we build community, share space and determine who benefits when the rules are rewritten.
The council and Planning Board will ultimately decide whether this zoning amendment moves forward. While there’s been good-faith work to represent community concerns by the Union Square Neighborhood Council, an all-volunteer group recognized by the city, it does not have the political power or legal authority to shape zoning outcomes. Its role is limited to negotiating community benefit agreements, which offer some mitigation but do not address the deeper structural questions at play – or substitute for a true public mandate.
This isn’t a debate about whether Somernova should grow. It’s about how it grows and who gets to shape that future. Somerville doesn’t need to rubber-stamp growth to prove it welcomes it. But it does need to honor the public process it worked so hard to build. This proposal asks us to bypass that process in favor of a single, developer-authored vision. If adopted, the new overlay would create ripple effects – in traffic, affordability, civic precedent and neighborhood identity – for decades.
Before we rewrite the rules for 7.4 acres of Somerville, we should be clear about what’s being given up – and by whom. When neighbors are literally asked to move to the back of the room, it’s worth asking again:
Who is this for? Are we rewriting zoning to serve Somerville residents – or a developer?
Michael Carlson is a Somerville resident and former chair of the Somerville Ward 2 Democratic Committee.
A stronger
Please consider making a financial contribution to maintain, expand and improve Cambridge Day.
We are now a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.
Please consider a recurring contribution.
I’ve lived near the Somernova site for 25 years and fully support the project.
Somernova promises significant benefits for Somerville—economic growth, job creation, and community enrichment—while addressing key needs like affordable housing and environmental sustainability.
The revised plan includes clear commitments: affordable housing, arts spaces, and a community center co-designed with residents.
These reflect a collaborative response to public
You can’t please everyone. If we require a “public mandate” for every development, nothing would ever get developed. This attitude has led to the current housing crisis.
Finally, we can’t let traffic and parking concerns stall progress. Cities must move beyond car-centric thinking to grow responsibly.
I think the development of the Somernova parcels represents an incredible opportunity, but am disappointed by its limited scope. A 1.5 million square foot development needs to be viewed holistically, measured for its impact on the community.
The proposed zoning does very little to incentivize mixed use development beyond requiring 8% to be provided as ‘ACE’ spaces and 10k sf as a Community Center. Furthermore, options exist for the developer to ‘buy’ their way out of those ACE obligations. When compared against the 1.35-1.5 million sf of ‘tough tech’ that would otherwise be allowed by right, those concessions feel like small potatoes.
A development at this scale needs significant housing and retail to help the community feel alive. There’s no promise of either, here. Instead, we’re losing Aeronaut and Bouldering Project.
I believe in development and density. Just not this project as proposed.
Thanks for clarifying how public process got undercut by the city, now designing zoning to developer’s specs, disregarding impacts. All bets are off if zoning comes through and green tech economy tanks. Nor is housing guaranteed, only a light industrial development with 5 huge buildings jammed into little streets not well served by transit: that’s why this area was designated inappropriate for major development.
I live in Duck Village, on a 2-way street 1.5 lanes wide. Cut-throughs already speed in, curb space fills with folks who walk to work (no blame), causing head-on jams with nowhere to pull aside. Developer needs 750 spaces for tech employees–I shudder to imagine fire trucks trying to get through Park at either end. Meanwhile, on the Somerville Ave side, 150 residents will be in shadow 9 months of the year. Good things can happen here, but let’s shrink the envelope a bit? Assembly Square ain’t perfect, but 5 story heights make it a place people love to go–they can see the sky.
From nearby neighbor and community member:
Yes to Somervision.
Yes to Affordable Housing.
Yes to HUMAN SCALE.
No to 25 foot high ceiling R&D warehouse spaces in 200 foot high buildings in a small scale neighborhood with no nearby mass transit.
The 2019 zoning overhaul was good in that it simplified a lot of complex regulations, but the resulting height limits did not leave enough room for what the city actually needs to build. This contributed to the ongoing housing shortage and is bottlenecking expansion of innovative, world problem-solving, tax-paying businesses at the Somernova site.
This failure indicates to me that residents need to have less not more control over what gets built, and distribute more decision-making responsibility to people who know what the market is demanding at the time of building.
The city should focus on alleviating the traffic problems by requiring employers to incentivize not driving to work, building out the bike network ,speeding existing buses, adding a shuttle on the Harvard-Medford axis, and getting a Green Line stop at Park Street. Kendall Square managed to *reduce* traffic while adding jobs, and so can Somerville.
The idea that there is ” no nearby mass transit, that the area is “not well served by transit,” is not telling the full story. I live nearby and have never had an issue with transit accessibility.
Yes, it isn’t immediately on top of a train station in the way assembly or union is but it is only about half a mile from Union and less than a mile from Harvard and Porter (5-10 min on a bike with decent infrastructure in between) It is also served by several bus lines. It is directly served by the 83 and 87, and not too far from the 85 or 109, which is now a frequent bus route.
It is also directly on a rail line. The developer has said they will build in a way that doesn’t prevent a station there. The community should be pushing the developer to build the station like Boston Landing, not focusing on nonsense like the buildings being too tall.
To those of you arguing on behalf of this project, seeking fewer regulations in hope for more housing in the future, I would caution you to look closely at what’s proposed.
Not only is there no requirement for housing as a part of this zoning, there is a 15% ceiling on housing, meaning that the developer literally can’t proposed housing beyond 15% of its square footage.
Housing is not currently profitable at large scale; in order to make it happen, it needs to be incentivized or required as part of a larger development (like this one). We have a chance to do that here, but it needs your support.
As is, this project will have a deleterious effect on housing by creating 4,000 high paying jobs, while adding no places for those people to live. This will result in displacement and a worse rental market.