Negotiations broke down last week between the city and Tufts over the university’s plans – or apparent lack thereof – for the Powder House School and the land surrounding it. The main reason given was that Tufts could not commit to a timeline of when it would break ground.

Tufts also apparently said it would not likely develop the site for somewhere around 15 years, which is something that was never even hinted at during the design meetings and community forums held with the site’s neighbors.

What was discussed at those meetings was whether there would be a basketball court and how many places there could be for picnics in the open-space portion of the site. While not exactly a divide-and-conquer approach, the design meetings did separate residents into groups to discuss different aspects of the development, which included the above-mentioned open space, the building that would have replaced the school and traffic and parking issues.

It now seems obvious Tufts really did not know what it wanted to do with the site. More likely, the school saw a chance to acquire a piece of property near both the university and the Tufts Administration Building behind the school on Holland Street. Taking the approach of “acquire first, develop later” clearly did not work in this situation, and the city was right to say enough is enough after it became apparent Tufts was not moving forward in the spirit of the request for proposals developed for the site. Being only in “exclusive negotiations” with Tufts, and not having rushed into a land disposition agreement, frees up the city to do as it did and move on to the next proposal on the list.

While Tufts may have been hazy on what it intended to use the building proposed to replace the vacant school for, it was at least willing to scale back the project from its original two-building design, which, in one version, included a 35-unit housing development. Residents quickly made it clear they did not want to see more housing in the area, so that part was dropped after the first design meeting in January.

But residential is what they are likely to get. The next two top bidders behind Tufts are both proposing apartments at the site. Davis Square Partners, whose proposal came in second to Tufts, wants to build 30 to 40 “family-style” apartments. The idea is the multi-bedroom units would attract families. It could, however, just result in individual apartments occupied by multiple adult roommates who may or may not also have multiple cars.

Hopefully, whoever is picked to develop the site will reach out to neighbors in the same way Tufts did (or at least in the way the architectural firm the university hired did. Maybe city officials could take more of a lead in future meetings.). After neighbors invested so much now-wasted time with Tufts, though, will they come out again to put time into a project that, as they have now learned, could be scrapped without warning.

The meeting scheduled for this Wednesday (March 26) to discuss the recent change will offer an indication of whether residents will roll with it or just walk away convinced their participation is just a way to distract them while the real planning and conversations take place elsewhere without them.