This paper examines the theoretical insights from a study of thirteen large-scale urban development projects (UDPs) in twelve European Union countries. The research, part of the Targeted Socioeconomic Research Action (URSPIC), explores how globalization and liberalization have influenced new forms of governance, the formation of a new scalar gestalt, and the relationship between large-scale urban development and political, social, and economic power relations. Key findings include: 1. **Exceptionality Measures**: Large-scale UDPs have increasingly been used to establish exceptionality measures in planning and policy procedures, reflecting a neoliberal "New Urban Policy" approach that favors middle- and upper-class democracy and less democratic, more elite-driven priorities. 2. **State and Private Sector Collaboration**: Local authorities, often in collaboration with the private sector, have relied on large-scale UDPs to reinforce the competitive position of metropolitan economies. These projects are often supported by local constituencies or initiated through "exceptionality" measures, such as bypassing conventional planning tools and creating project agencies with special powers. 3. **Neoliberal Urban Policy (NUP)**: The NUP, aligned with conservative liberalism, seeks to reorient state intervention towards supporting new forms of capital accumulation through megaprojects and place-marketing. This approach emphasizes market-oriented and market-dependent approaches to economic promotion and competitive restructuring. 4. **Institutional Fragmentation and Governance**: The emergence of new institutions and agencies has led to a fragmented and pluralistic mode of urban governance, characterized by a lack of accountability, representation, and formal rules of inclusion or participation. These institutions often supersede local and regional authorities, shaping urban interventions and interventions that reflect the demands of included groups while marginalizing others. 5. **From Planning to Projects**: Large-scale urban projects have replaced statutory planning as the primary means of intervention, with planning through urban "projects" emerging as a strategy to stimulate economic growth and organize innovation. However, this shift has not displaced planning entirely, and new modes of intervention, planning goals, tools, and institutions have emerged. 6. **Neoliberal Urban Order**: UDPs are central to the neoliberal urban order, reflecting power struggles and aspirations of key economic, political, social, or cultural elites. These projects often target places rather than people, with spatially targeted redevelopment schemes replacing universalist approaches. 7. **Speculation and Land Rent**: UDPs are inherently speculative, with financial and economic viability depending on the future realization of increased urban rents. This reliance on rent returns targets high-income segments and potentially high-productivity economic activities, contributing to social segmentation and exclusion. The paper concludes by discussing the democratic deficit in neoliberal urbanism, highlighting how urban regeneration policies have shifted towards neoliberal socioeconomic policies, leading to critical shifts in intervention domains, actor compositions, institutional structures, and policy tools.This paper examines the theoretical insights from a study of thirteen large-scale urban development projects (UDPs) in twelve European Union countries. The research, part of the Targeted Socioeconomic Research Action (URSPIC), explores how globalization and liberalization have influenced new forms of governance, the formation of a new scalar gestalt, and the relationship between large-scale urban development and political, social, and economic power relations. Key findings include: 1. **Exceptionality Measures**: Large-scale UDPs have increasingly been used to establish exceptionality measures in planning and policy procedures, reflecting a neoliberal "New Urban Policy" approach that favors middle- and upper-class democracy and less democratic, more elite-driven priorities. 2. **State and Private Sector Collaboration**: Local authorities, often in collaboration with the private sector, have relied on large-scale UDPs to reinforce the competitive position of metropolitan economies. These projects are often supported by local constituencies or initiated through "exceptionality" measures, such as bypassing conventional planning tools and creating project agencies with special powers. 3. **Neoliberal Urban Policy (NUP)**: The NUP, aligned with conservative liberalism, seeks to reorient state intervention towards supporting new forms of capital accumulation through megaprojects and place-marketing. This approach emphasizes market-oriented and market-dependent approaches to economic promotion and competitive restructuring. 4. **Institutional Fragmentation and Governance**: The emergence of new institutions and agencies has led to a fragmented and pluralistic mode of urban governance, characterized by a lack of accountability, representation, and formal rules of inclusion or participation. These institutions often supersede local and regional authorities, shaping urban interventions and interventions that reflect the demands of included groups while marginalizing others. 5. **From Planning to Projects**: Large-scale urban projects have replaced statutory planning as the primary means of intervention, with planning through urban "projects" emerging as a strategy to stimulate economic growth and organize innovation. However, this shift has not displaced planning entirely, and new modes of intervention, planning goals, tools, and institutions have emerged. 6. **Neoliberal Urban Order**: UDPs are central to the neoliberal urban order, reflecting power struggles and aspirations of key economic, political, social, or cultural elites. These projects often target places rather than people, with spatially targeted redevelopment schemes replacing universalist approaches. 7. **Speculation and Land Rent**: UDPs are inherently speculative, with financial and economic viability depending on the future realization of increased urban rents. This reliance on rent returns targets high-income segments and potentially high-productivity economic activities, contributing to social segmentation and exclusion. The paper concludes by discussing the democratic deficit in neoliberal urbanism, highlighting how urban regeneration policies have shifted towards neoliberal socioeconomic policies, leading to critical shifts in intervention domains, actor compositions, institutional structures, and policy tools.