Of all integrative analytical urban development models that analyse European urban development experience, we must high-light the goals of the ‘Lille 2000’ urban action. According to the material there is a need for new aspects of urban development on both a national and EU level, as well as a need for improving civil participation, for action against social and ethnic segregation, an integrated and balanced urban development, the cooperation of the public and private sectors, the spread of best practices, net-working, the dissemination of modern technologies and the further study of urban regions (Lille 2000: The Lille Action Programme, 2004).
The trends formulated by Peter Hall in 1992 are emphasised in the background analyses of various action plans; namely, conti-nental commerce blocks, the transformation of Eastern and Central Europe, information economy and technology, the trans-formation of transport technologies, urban promotional activity, the competition of cities, and the trends of demographic and social changes.
During disputes before the millennium, a belief was formed that eastern expansion would move the focus of urban develop-ment eastward in the EU. European transport developdevelop-ment has a dual effect, and the multitude of national policies is fundamen-tally defining from the perspective of EU policy.
After the turn of the millennium, polycentric urban develop-ment received a central role in the ESDP’s (European Spatial Development Perspective) programmes, despite the fact that it became clear that this model cannot be used in all regions as it makes development dependent on business investors and
there-fore concentrates it. If it dominates, competition among cities would amplify on regional, national and transnational levels, and it would not be suitable to treat unemployment and social exclu-sion. Urban policies therefore fall into the trap of programmes that attract investments and support foreign direct investment.
The balanced competitiveness models that oppose this were over-shadowed because urban policies were part of national policies where the EU could only make feeble interventions.
The new cohesion policy adopted in 2005 emphasised cities’
competitiveness, innovation, the ability to attract investors, the renovation of run-down neighbourhoods, and a more balanced but polycentric development. The EU’s urban policy was based on the 2007 State of European Cities Report. We could not find references to wellbeing in the 2007–2013 European cohesion po -licy’s urban dimension. In other policies the concept of well-being appeared under terms such as employment, social cohesion and sustainable development (European Commission Interservice Group on Urban Development, 2010).Well-being as a topic was not present in any of the 50 priority projects between 2007 and 2013 (Urban Development in the EU, 2013).
While analysing the EU’s 2007–2013 programmes we found a significant difference in the use of urban development funds: 50%
of competitive regions spent these funds on urban programmes, compared to only 35% of convergence regions. Competitive regi -ons in new member states had no urban programmes, and the share of urban development programmes was only 10% in con-vergence regions, the rest being sectoral policies (Commission of EC, DG Regional Policy, 2008).In 12 EU countries, industrial reha-bilitation (such as infrastructure and waste management) and one-sided physical rehabilitation (city centre renovation and brown-field investments) dominated over integrated perspectives on both professional and financing levels. The 2007–2013 regu-lation provided an adequate space to involve the urban level in planning. However, national planning excluded the representa-tives of local communities in most cases.
Urban development became a top priority again during the Spanish-Belgian presidency (2010–2011). The Toledo Declaration emphasised the importance of integrated urban regeneration and its models and methods, and it developed the referential framework of sustainable urban development as a method. It was
tested until 2011 in almost 50 cities (Urban Intergroup at the European Parliament: Working Paper on Urban Development, 2011).The need for a more balanced spatial development was expressed during the Hungarian presidency as well. In addition a continued emphasis on polycentric development, the development of medi-um and small cities was also set up as a goal. It was also during this period that the requirement of integrated design became even more pronounced.
Urban development was strongly influenced by the EU’s single market policy and the programming related to this. After remai n-ing a national responsibility, urban policy could not finance stronger programmes in addition to the economic development priorities. However, almost two decades of EU policy clearly show that this policy plays an important role in the funds of spatial and cohesion policies.
Among EU member states, urban development aspirations have been different from the 2004 period onwards, and not only in the EU-15 but also in the EU-12. Between 2007 and 2013, the EU’s policies and guidelines show an aspiration towards decentra l-ised, integrated planning. However, these principles were less pronounced in the convergence regions of member states that joined before 2004, and they were even less pronounced in new member states. This happened despite the fact that it was already clear during the stage of planning that new member states intended to spend a significant portion of funds on sectoral poli-cies and one-dimensional spatial reconstruction. As a whole, the EU had a neoliberal spatial policy (and a polycentric develop-ment model) which affected the urban developdevelop-ment of new member states very negatively and dramatically increased spatial disparities.
The EU’s policy was therefore unable to convey European urban development patterns to all affected regions and new member states. The EU’s assets did not prove to be enough for creating new national urban policy models. If we compare these results with the UN Habitat report, we can conclude that its find-ings are much deeper as they reveal the wrong steps in the poli-cies during the change of regime and their consequences, espe-cially that the effectiveness of urban development does not only hinge on suitable planning practices.