The groups were initially charged with formulating “criteria to be used in modeling scenarios for new institutional development in Allston...and to raise and respond to critical questions for determining the best way to provide space alternatives for the University’s future growth,” according to the draft of their missions.

According to Kathy Spiegelman, the director of the Allston initiative and the University’s top planner, the committees were instrumental.

“The UPPC met almost monthly this year, and my staff reads all the minutes, which try to summarize their discussions,” Spiegelman says. “They have worked alongside us, with architects, with engineers, doing a lot of technical analysis work...but it is up to the president to decide next fall if they are still need to do this work.”

Stone agrees, but could not confirm whether the UPPC would meet next year.

“Planning by nature goes in stages, and whether committees should disband and have new ones take their place is part of the process—there will be plenty of committees involved in Allston planning,” he says.

According to members of the committees, only the advisory group on housing wrote and submitted a formal report to the provost.

“We didn’t meet at all this semester,” said Emery Chemistry Professor Eric N. Jacobsen, who served on both of two committees on science planning. “And we produced no formal reports. All we did was discuss options, throw around ideas.”

Jacobsen says he met with University Provost Steven E. Hyman to ask why the groups had stopped meeting.

Professor in the Practice of Urban Design Alex B. Krieger, who served on the housing committee, stresses that the provost committees have limited power.

“These committees are supposedly framing ideas and making recommendations, but it is unclear that they have any other authority besides making recommendations to the provost,” he says.

Meanwhile, the San Francisco-based consulting firms that Harvard hired—Arup and SMWM—were both scheduled to finish their analyses by the end of the academic year, in time to provide direction for an Allston decision this summer.

But now, some professors say that the reports are not as conclusive as some hoped they would be.

“Not many insights were found in the study—it didn’t provide a lot of definitive answers,” says Krieger, who saw early drafts of the Arup report, which focused on transportation.

Spiegelman says that the consultants’ reports have opened up new questions in the Allston discussion.

“I am optimistic that as we wrap up [SMWM and Arup’s] work in the coming month, the president will find it useful,” she says.