Given such widespread opposition, the committee’s consultant said that he currently believes any final recommendations will almost certainly suggest a far different use for the site that what Harvard has proposed.

“As a betting man, I’d say they’re pretty opposed to a museum on that site,” said David Lee of Boston’s Stull and Lee consulting firm. “I’m optimistic there can be some acceptable set of uses that would be agreed on for the site.”

While McCready serves as Harvard’s on the committee, many committee members have expressed reluctance to allow the University to participate too heavily in the committee’s work.

While Harvard did make a presentation at one committee meeting in early July, members were hesitant to allow the University to make further presentations and instead asked for its representatives to respond in written reports.

One member of the committee said that this decision was based on Harvard’s attitude in its earlier presentations.

“It very clear from the tone of [Harvard’s] presentation that [they are saying] ‘we’re going to build a museum if you like it or not,’” said Joan Qualls Harris, a Riverside resident and committee member. “Harvard shouldn’t treat us like we’re not here.”

Harvard’s representative said that he believed the University’s active role in the committee was important.

“We want to be in there,” McCready said. “You don’t have a dialogue over paper.”