This paper was motivated, on one hand, by a continuous interest in the institutional framework of urban development, and, on the other hand, by a special concern for understanding the role of the urban planner as described in the legislation, but also as defined through the current professional practice in a transitional society. Another research preoccupation concerns the positioning of professionals, civil society and decision makers across Europe in regard to a possible “model” for sustainable urban development that is proposed by international literature, by European Union institutions or by forums of the political representatives of Member States. Is there something solid to count on, a real content to the expression “sustainable development”? Is there a “right path” to take in order to ensure real conditions for “good development”?

The decision to study the processes affecting the diffuse heritage areas (protected areas) was influenced by the fact that they have been subject to lively position-taking by many groups of actors. For their future, the conservationist section of the professional community is in conflict with the urban planners and the dynamic architecture offices that are willing to accept the demolition of existing buildings to make space for new ones. Civic organization representatives see the real estate developers as enemies. Many old houses were bought for the land beneath them and the new owners want to exploit these land parcels as much as possible. And, as we shall see, it was possible, and indeed still is possible, to change the urban regulations in order to build more square meters. Public authorities of the administrative sectors of Bucharest are in competition with the General City Hall for having the right to decide over the building permits in these “protected” perimeters, because the decision over the number of built square meters means power (there is no similar level of preoccupation from the urban actors for the brown field problem or the collective housing ensembles, for instance).

For now, in Romania, only a small group of professionals has been delivering messages on sustainable development to other actors and, as a consequence, there is only limited knowledge on the processes, tools, and responsibilities related to it. Our assumption is that the urban planners do have a real privileged position that allows them to improve the thinking frames of the other stakeholders. But are urban planners in Romania capable and willing to encourage the cooperation between various experts, local council representatives, public servants, NGO representatives, business men and women? Due to professional reasons, urban planners are likely to understand the space better than others. Yet do they have the required capacity to understand social and political issues? Do they have the necessary tools for really working together with the social sciences in order to include community and societal values into spatial planning? Do spatial planners have the understanding, motivation, and interest to encourage public participation and cooperation of all the urban stakeholders in order to build inclusive urban policies? Are they interested in fighting for a stronger position in the equilibrium of power to decide over the future of their city?