The papers the author refers to comprise several hundreds of pages, so this overview can only focus on a few key points. The terminology seeks to follow the terms used in British English, and the quotations are translated from Hungarian by the author. 

In Hungary, on both the territorial (national and regional) and local level there is a clear distinction between development planning on the one hand and spatial planning – more in the sense of physical planning – on the other (for details, cf. the appendix ‘Planning system of Hungary’). There is a long tradition of planning: Law No. 6 on Urban Planning and Construction of 1937 (Vétv. 1937) provided for a municipal development programme as a legally binding (!) prerequisite for physical planning with its two levels, the ‘general spatial plan’ of the whole municipal area and ‘detailed spatial plans’ for its sub-areas. The main features of the planning system had remained unchanged by the time of the Law on Construction of 1964 (Étv. 1964), of course without the guarantees of property rights. However, the systemic change after 1990 was not so rigorous as in the former East Germany: in contrast to Germany, with some exceptions there was only compensation for expropriated property, and Hungarian planning traditions (from the pre-war period and to some extent from the Communist age, too) could be drawn upon during the transformation period. For a longer time, Law No. 78 of 1997 on the Formation and Protection of the Built Environment (Étv. 1997) with subsequent amendments has regulated planning matters at the municipal (community) level. This Law was broadly based both on Hungary’s own tradition of Laws No. 6 of 1937 and No. 3 of 1964, and on considerations taken from the German Baugesetzbuch, the Federal Building Code (BauGB 1986).

During the Communist rule, there was a spatial development policy based on the central places theory of Walter Christaller (Christaller 1980). In 1971 a ‘countrywide concept of high, medium and basic level centres’ was introduced (Nemes Nagy 1998). The concept was very Socialist in style and was handled in a very rigid manner, so the system of central places was not taken on board after the 1990 political reset. 

However, after lengthy discussions it was clear that spatial planning is not a Communist devilry, so in 1996 the Law on Spatial Development and Planning was introduced (Tftv. 1996), followed in 1997 by the Law on the Built Environment (Étv. 1997), covering urban development and planning and the health and safety requirements for construction works. Due to the fact that the Law on Spatial Development of 2023 (Tftv. 2023) is quite new, most of the existing spatial plans are based on the Law on Spatial Development and Planning of 1996 (Tftv. 1996). 

Section 1(2) of the Law states: ‘The scope of the Law covers the regulation of the spatial development and spatial planning tasks of the State and of self-governing bodies. The Law applies to natural and legal persons active in this field or affected by it, as well as organisations without legal personality.’ That is to say: there is no binding effect on the general public, and no participation of the general public – however, there is broad participation on the basis of the bodies and organisations as mentioned.

According to Section 2 Tftv. (2023), ‘the goals of spatial development are: 

a) strengthening competitiveness […] and spatial cohesion; generating the prerequisites for sustainable development; supporting the spatial dissemination of innovations; establishing a spatial structure to correspond with social, economic and environmental goals; providing the framework for the optimal use of land; 
b) reducing the substantial differences between the capital and rural areas, and between well-developed and the underdeveloped areas […]; 
c) shaping a harmonious spatial structure for the country in alignment with spatial planning policy; 
d) preserving and strengthening national and regional identity; 
e) strengthening the capacity of rural areas to retain the population in their region;
f) strengthening the sustainable use of social and environmental resources;
g) ensuring social welfare, the living standard of the population and equal social opportunities.’ 

Section 3 Tftv. (2023) requires the incorporation of European regional policy into national policy and identifies several specific tasks of the actors involved, including – not according to the wording, but de facto – a sort of ‘counter flow principle’, similar to German legislation. However, the law does not really resolve the classic conflict between ‘strengthening excellences’ and ‘caring for the troublesome and burdened’ (Brenner 2020b). In accordance with Section 6 Tftv. (2023), Parliament determines the Countrywide Spatial Development Concept (CSDC 2014), the specific tasks of local self-governing bodies, the relevant budgetary measures and – as a new element in comparison to Tftv. (1996) – introduces a Spatial Development Service. 

Section 8(1) Tftv. (2023) regulates the implementation of European policies in national spatial development and planning: 

‘The minister responsible for spatial development shall
1. prepare
a) the spatial aspects of the partnership agreement laying down the use of EU resources and the implementation programme;
b) […];
c) the cross-border spatial development strategies and programmes resulting from international cooperation duties which affect multiple countries;
d) the concept for the reginal assistance map.’ 

A good example of this cross-border cooperation is Interreg AT-HU 2021–2027 (n.d.), which includes on the Hungarian side the counties of Györ-Sopron-Moson, Vas (as described in the additional papers in more detail) and Zala, and on the Austrian side the City of Vienna (Wien), parts of the Länder Niederösterreich and Steiermark, and all of the Land Burgenland. To mention only one of several common projects: ‘Cross-border Rail’ will provide for better, environmentally-friendly rail connections, especially between tertiary (Neusiedl/See, Kapuvár) and secondary (Sopron, Györ) connections in the direction of the TEN-T corridor and better accessibility between Jennersdorf (Burgenland) and Szentgotthárd (County Vas).

According to Section 14(1) Tftv. (2023), the types of plan ‘immediately serving spatial development are:

a) the Countrywide Spatial Development Concept;
b) the spatial development concept for a greater region;
c) the spatial development concept for an emphasised region;
d) the implementation programme;
e) the spatial development programme for an emphasised region;
f) the spatial development concept and programme […] for a non-emphasised region;
g) the spatial development concept and programme at county and capital city level;
h) the integrated spatial programme at county and capital city level;
i) the spatial development programme for a region of common treatment.’

This ‘zoo’ of spatial development instruments seems to be a case of over-administration, and is completed by instruments of (physical) spatial planning, which, according to Section 28(1) Tftv. (2023), are:

‘a) the countrywide spatial plan;
b) the spatial plan of an emphasised region, to be prepared at least for the Budapest agglomeration and for the emphasised region of the Lake Balaton Recreational Area;
c) the spatial plan of the county;
d) the spatial plan of an area needing specific provisions, to be prepared at least for the littoral zone of Lake Balaton.’ 

The draft (physical) spatial plans have to be discussed and agreed with the public bodies whose interests are affected and with the ‘bodies representing interests’ (Section 30 Tftv. 2023), but there is no provision for general public participation.

Section 20 Tftv. (2023) provides for a ‘spatial land-use permit’ (in Hungarian, térségi területfelhasználási engedély) to be used especially for the planning of linear infrastructural elements, which is to a broad extent similar to the German spatial planning process (Raumordnungsverfahren) (Raumordnungsgesetz 2023).

The Countrywide Spatial Development Concept (in full, the ‘National Development 2030 – Countrywide Development and Spatial Development Concept’ (CSDC 2014)) was developed in accordance with the preamble and Section 6(a) of Tftv. (1996) as a parliamentary resolution, not as a formal law, but is politically binding for the government and its agencies. The CSDC was originally based on the (frequently modified) Law of 1996, but is now based on the new law of 2023 and, according to a report by the Ministry of Finance of 2018 (Pénzügyminisztérium 2018), there are no substantial alterations. This report states: ‘According to the future vision of the CSDC, Hungary will in 2030 be one of the leading economic and intellectual centres of Eastern Central Europe, with a competitive economy based on the fair earnings of the population, the sustainable use of resources in the context of a growing population, strengthened communities, and a higher quality of life and of the environment’ (Pénzügyminisztérium 2018: 29). However, this ‘future vision’ is obviously more of an illusion than a vision, especially looking at the population figures, but the CSDC is still the political and technical basis of the Countrywide Spatial Development Plan (CSDP 2018). 

In a lengthy analytical section (cf. Fact sheet for planning levels: CSDC), the CSDC defines the concept for the intended spatial development of Hungary. In addition to the ‘Important dimensions of Hungary’s spatial integration into the EU’, the paper defines the following ‘functional spaces: recreational space around Budapest; economic-technological core spaces; spaces with predominantly settlement functions; spaces with touristic functions; spaces under near-to-nature management; spaces with high agricultural potential’.

Under ‘Strategic spatial connections’, the CSDC seeks to complement the currently Budapest-centred transport system by developing tangential branch lines in the southeast and another following the line of the ancient ‘Amber Road’ in the west. Furthermore, ‘spaces [are] proposed for the use of wind, solar and geothermic energy, and biomass’ (cf. Fact sheet for planning levels: CSDC). 

Law No. 139 of 2018 on the Countrywide Spatial Development Plan of Hungary and of several emphasised spaces (CSDP 2018) states in Section 1 the goals of the plan: ‘[…] defining the conditions of land use and the spatial order of coordinated infrastructural networks, strengthening efficient economic and spatial development, taking into account sustainable development, including the protection of natural, landscape, ecological and cultural values. In the interest of these goals, the […] spatial plan establishes a system which is coordinated with the spatial development strategies.’ This last sentence provides for a link to the CSDP. The CSDP is to be communicated to the ministers responsible for spatial planning in neighbouring countries (Section 30 (2) Tftv. 2023). 

According to Section 5 of the CSDP, there is a ‘struture plan for the country’ and a ‘land use zoning plan’ (cf. Fact sheet for planning levels: CSDP). Section 9 of the CSDP lists the following spatial land use categories: forests; agriculture; water resources; human settlements. In more detail, there are ‘countrywide zones: core, corridor and buffer zones for the ecological network; zones for agriculture with high potential; zones for woodland and forestry; zones for areas of outstanding natural beauty; zones for world heritage and potential world heritage; protection zones for water and water resources; and zones for defence’ (cf. Fact sheet for planning levels: CSDP). The technical infrastructure networks are defined in the text of the CSDP. Where agricultural land is to be used for other purposes, the CSDP stipulates that compensation is to be paid. It is interesting that there is no system of central places (see the above section on the history of planning in Hungary). 

As a sort of ‘Hungarian speciality’, the CSDP has two chapters dealing with the Lake Balaton Recreational Region and the Metropolitan Area of Budapest (cf. Fact sheet for planning levels: CSDP). Due to the fact that the government itself is the body responsible for preparing the CSDP, this is a very centralistic approach, which reduces the powers of local governments. In the specific case of the capital, this may be an attempt to correct the provisions of the Act on Local Governments (Mötv. 2011), which gives only very narrow planning powers to the City of Budapest, and strengthens the boroughs as self-governing bodies in their own right (Brenner 2020b). However, the City of Budapest participated in the preparation of the CSDP and the Metropolitan Area Plan (Section 25(3) Tftv. 2023). 

Unfortunately, in the case of the Lake Balaton Region, the plan is definitively too late: the south bank in particular is virtually a suburban area approximately 70 km long filled with weekend houses (Brenner 2020b).

This law – in full, Law No. 78 of 1997 on the Formation and Protection of the Built Environment (Étv. 1997) – was in force in its basic form but with a series of modifications until 2021, and many plans are still based on it, so it is still relevant for planning practice. The Law regulated development and spatial planning at local (community) level, including the instruments to implement the plans. The main responsibilities were assigned to the community councils (cf. Section 6-6B Étv.). They were responsible for the coordination of different interests during the drafting process, the public participation process and the final adoption of the plans. Section 9/B Étv. made a clear distinction between the instruments of development – the local development concept and the integrated local development strategy – on the one hand, and the instruments of (physical) planning – the struture plan and the local building regulation – on the other hand. Specific regulations applied for planning in Budapest (Sections 14-14/C Étv.): in addition to the struture plan for Budapest, the city council introduced a framework building regulation, setting the parameters for the local building regulations of the boroughs, and state building regulations for two specific areas: the land use and construction works on both banks of the Danube river, and the Városliget (City Park, an intensely discussed government investment to locate a ‘museum quarter’ in the park).

The municipalities had a set of instruments to implement the plans. According to Section 17 Étv., the main instruments were: stipulations for construction works; prohibitions; rights of pre-emption; compulsory purchase; compensation for planning disadvantages; and planning contracts. A temporary construction ban was imposed during the period needed to draft the local building regulation (Section 20 Étv.). 

According to Section 4 Étv., in cases of ‘investments in emphasised interests’, which may be economic, historical or cultural, the government rather than the municipality has the power to define the plans (on national, regional and local level) for those areas. This could severely limit local self-governing powers and is still in force on the basis of other legislation (cf. Méptv. 2023: Section 194).

Due to the fact that most existing plans are still based on the Étv., some of those plans will be mentioned here:

• The Local Development Concept: According to Section 2 No. 27 Étv., the Local Development Concept is ‘a document based on the environmental, social and economic circumstances of the municipality, which is prepared for the whole municipality and which determines the directions of change and the long-term development goals’. The concept is not legally binding, but is rather a self-commitment on the part of the municipality, based on a council decision.
• The Integrated Local Development Strategy: As defined in Section 2 No. 12 Étv., the Local Development Strategy is ‘a mid-term development programme, serving the implementation of the ecological, social and economic goals as defined in the Local Development Concept’. This strategy could be seen as a part of the Local Development Concept, but the Étv. defines it as an instrument in its own right; like the concept it is not legally binding, but rather a self-commitment on the part of the municipality, based on a council decision.
• The Struture plan: The struture plan provides for the implementation of the goals as defined in the Local Development Concept and determines the structure of the municipality’s territory, the land use, and the arrangement of the technical infrastructure networks’ (Section 2 No. 29 Étv.), taking into account the higher level plans and the plans of neighbouring municipalities. The struture plan is binding for all public actors that took part in the planning process. The municipal council adopts the struture plan by resolution.

• The Local Building Regulation: This instrument (cf. Section 13 Étv.) consists of text and a map (in a former version of the Étv. it was called the ‘Regulation Plan’, but the name was changed for legal reasons). The Local Building Regulations are adopted as local statutes and are binding for all actors. The Local Building Regulations provide for the delimitation of zones; zoning in terms of the type and degree of building and land use (cf. OTÉK, n.d.); maximum building heights; building lines and boundaries; parking places; the protection of the townscape, areas of outstanding natural beauty, and areas of archaeological interest.

   

In 2021, Parliament passed a bill on the reform of planning legislation (Planning Modification Law 2021). The Law is intended to reduce drastically the different types of plans. According to this Law, there will be a Local Development Plan, adopted by the community council and incorporating the recent Local Development Concept, the Integrated Development Strategy, and the Structure Plan. The new Regulation Plan is in fact a back-dated renaming of the existing Local Building Regulation and its graphics, and will be adopted by the municipal council as a local rule. The law effectively sounded the death knell of the former system, which in broad terms was based on Hungary’s own historical planning traditions combined with ideas adopted from Germany. However, the plans made on the basis of the older legislation remain in force for a longer transitional period, most of them until 2027.

Law No. C/2023 on Hungarian Architecture was published on 22 December 2023 (Méptv. 2023). The title of the law does not sufficiently reflect its content, which includes not only planning at the municipal level, but also the protection of monuments, professional chambers, building regulations, construction products, etc. (Brenner 2024). The elements of the Planning Modification Law 2021, focused on reducing the types of plans , remain in force. According to Section 16 No. 124 Méptv., the Municipal Plan is ‘the common denomination of the Local Development Plan and the Local Regulation Plan’. However, the legal terminology is inconsistent and, due to the specific status of Budapest and its boroughs, quite complicated. Section 79(4) Méptv. states: 

1. The local council or the council of the city with county rights adopts the local development plan and the local building regulation.

2. The council of the borough adopts the local development plan and the borough building regulation, which shall be treated as the local building regulation.

3. The city council of the capital city [Budapest] adopts the local development plan and the regulation order of the capital city, as well as the building regulation for the banks of the Danube and the Városliget [a large public park]; both shall be treated as local building regulations.

4. The local building regulation and the regulation order of the capital city shall be treated as local regulation plans. The local development plan and the local regulation plan together constitute the municipal plan of the local self-government.’

In other words, the local building regulation and the local development plan are synonymous terms, where (according to a judgment of the Constitutional Court) the plan in the form of a map is an annex to the local building regulation.

The Law seeks to introduce the principle of ‘good civil taste’ into architecture (whatever this may be, apart from the taste of mediocre dictatorial individuals as can be seen near the former Royal Palace in Budapest). There are also innovative aspects: the focus of efforts should now be shifted to urban renewal instead of greenfield investments, but again with a lot of powers given to the government instead of the municipalities: ‘The boundaries of action areas in the rust belt […] will be – after hearing from the municipality, or in the capital city after hearing from the borough – defined by government order’ (Section 18(3) sentence 2, Méptv.).

A specific point, which seems to be important for Prime Minister Orbán (giving the government planning powers in clear contradiction of the constitutional principles of local self-government through the increasing restriction of municipal planning sovereignty by the Orbán government since 2010), is the treatment of so-called ‘emphasised investments’. Such investments had been regulated since 2006 in a specific law (Emphasised Investments Act 2006) with the goal of rapidly implementing EU grants, but since 2010, after the re-election of Viktor Orbán as prime minister, the instrument has been heavily misused to facilitate investments by those in his inner circle. The relevant provisions of the Act of 2006 are now incorporated (with some modifications, but still giving the government a wide range of action) into Sections 193 to 201 of Méptv. According to Section 194(1) of Méptv., ‘the site of the emphasised investment and its immediate surroundings will be defined by a law or a government order based on that law’. Concerning the applicable material law, Section 194(7) of Méptv. states that ‘for the site of the emphasised investment and its immediate surroundings, requirements can be defined which deviate from municipal planning, construction rules […] and local townscape rules. In addition to material requirements, specific procedural requirements can also be introduced.’ In other words, the municipality can plan whatever, but ultimately the government will decide.

According to an overview by the independent news website Átlátszó, in 2018–2022 in Budapest alone there were 160 ‘emphasised investments’; in the County of Pest, the suburban agglomeration around Budapest, there were 87 (Átlátszó 2022). The set of instruments for implementing the plans remains more or less unchanged from Étv. (1997), cf. Sections 17 and 20 Étv. (1997) with Sections 84 and 85 Méptv. (2023).

According to Section 229 of Méptv., apart from some specific cases, the former plans based on Étv. (1997) and the Planning Modification Law (2021) remain in force until 30 June 2027, provided that they meet the main requirements of the new Law and can be treated in their function as replacements of the local development plan and the local building regulation. In particular, the former local development concept, the integrated local development strategy and the structure plan are together treated as the local development plan. The former townscape regulation, originally based on Tvtv. (2016) – a law in force from 2016 to 2023, which artificially separated townscape requirements from ‘everything else’ – has to be integrated into the local building regulation. 

An important sub-legislation to the Méptv. is the Government Order on the Basic Regulations of Planning and Construction Requirements (TÉKA 2024), which includes both material and procedural requirements. The main zoning parameters for the local building regulations given in Annex 2 of TÉKA (if a position in the table is not filled in, there is no provision) are: 

Table 1: Main zoning parameters for local building regulations

The requirements show one larger deviation from the former government order of 1997 (OTÉK 1997): there is no longer a maximum floor space ratio; the density is governed only by the eaves height in combination with the other parameters. Those parameters are to be applied for new plans.

There are many informal planning instruments, but describing them all would be beyond the scope of this paper. As an example, below is a detail from the spatial development concept of Budapest 2014 (Budapest Főváros Önkormányzat, 2014), indicating the main outlines of development. As this is an informal document, it may not correspond entirely with the nationwide strategies due to the conflicts arising between Budapest and the government.

Concerning the nationwide level, this question has been described in the ‘Spatial planning system’ chapter. For examples with figures and images, please see the series of Fact Sheets. Here are some examples of planning at the lower levels:

The concept (Vas Megyei Közgyülés 2014) consists of a future vision for the county, the development goals including their connection with the goals of the CSDC (2014) and the (former version of) the CSDP (2018) and with the sectoral concepts, a broad outline of the intended land use, the ‘system of development instruments and institutions’ (Vas Megyei Közgyülés 2014: 22; see also the Fact Sheet), and the planning process including public participation. 

The Spatial Development Concept for Vas County does not appear to have been implemented; there is only an EU-based programme, which was adopted in 2024 by the county council and approved by the government. As the programme paper states, ‘this document describes the Integrated Territorial and Local Programme for Vas County, which regulates the use of resources for the Territorial and Local Development Implementation Programme Plus (hereafter referred to as TOP Plus) related to Vas County’ (Vas Vármegyei Önkormányzati Hivatal 2024: 4). The document gives an interesting picture of the spatial structure of the county.

The plan defines in detail (see also the Fact Sheet for planning levels: County Development Plan) – in addition to Vas Megyei Közgyülés 2021a – different spatial zones and infrastructure: urbanised areas; rural settlements; mixed use areas; forests; agricultural areas; potential flooding areas; main and other roads; the nationwide and regional network of cycle tracks; main and secondary railway lines (Vas Megyei Közgyülés 2021b). 

Szombathely is the seat of Vas County, founded in Roman times and most likely the hometown of St. Martin. In 2011, the city had approximately 79,000 inhabitants (Szombathely 2017: 24). The concept defines in the form of a pyramid (Szombathely 2017: 12; cf. Fact sheet) the goals of sustainable development, consisting of economic, ecological and environmental goals, with a time perspective to 2030. For spatial aspects, see the Fact Sheet.

Based on the Concept, the Strategy formulates concrete proposals for action areas (Szombathely 2017: 66), to be financed particularly from EU sources (cf. Fact sheet). 

As stated in the Étv., the struture plan ‘determines the structure of the municipality’s territory, the land use, and the arrangement of the technical infrastructure networks’ (Section 2 No. 29 Étv.). The Fact Sheet shows the struture plan of Szombathely (Szombathely 2023a and 2023b) – due to the fact that the original file is too big to be reproduced properly here, an overview and a detail are given. 

The Local Building Regulation consists of a map and of written regulations, which add legally binding details. The original plan is also too big to be reproduced properly here; again, the Fact Sheet for the municipal planning levels shows a detail (Szombathely 2023c). For better understanding, here is an example of zoning stipulations (see also OTÉK 1997, Annex 2):

The Local Regulation on Townscape Protection of 2017 (Szombathely 2022) has the following main goals:

• Protection of local architectural heritage;
• Protection of areas of importance for the townscape;
• Stipulations for advertising structures;
• Protection and funding instruments. 

The regulation contains an appendix indicating the locally listed (protected) street views and buildings. Originally, the Local Building Regulations had some provisions related to the townscape, which now form – according to the former but now outdated legal basis (Tvtv. 2016) – a regulation in themselves.

Beyond the current debates about political problems within and with Hungary, it should not be forgotten that there is considerable professional knowledge of and commitment to spatial development and planning in the country. Hungary has a long tradition of planning – in some aspects, longer than Germany – and a specific planning culture, which has unfortunately been distorted in the last 15 years, after Prime Minister Viktor Orbán came into office again. In theory, the legal planning powers of municipalities still remain, but in practice they are totally undermined by the misuse of planning legislation related to the so-called ‘emphasised investments’ (Emphasised Investments Act 2006). As long as those regulations prevail, there is no chance for strengthening the planning culture. Nevertheless, the professional organisations in particular – like the chambers of architects and the Hungarian Society for Urban Planning (in Hungarian: Magyar Urbanisztikai Társaság (MUT)) – continue to work towards formulating and disseminating high professional standards.
There is also a sort of Hungarian specialty, introduced in 1962 in the communist era and revitalised in 1991: the system of ‘chief architects’ (főépítészek) at national, county and local level (now on the basis of Chapter V Métv.), who are in charge of the so-called planning advisory councils (tervtanács, now on the basis of Chapter VI Méptv.) (Építési jog 2025). Those councils have a role which significantly exceeds giving advice, de facto exercising a sort of veto in questions of planning and architecture. Their impact is difficult to assess: on the one hand, they can help to strengthen planning quality, but on the other hand, they can be misused for a sort of aesthetic dictatorship.

The core institution of planning education in Hungary is still the Department of Urban Planning and Design at the Faculty of Architecture of Budapest University of Technology and Economics. The Hungarian name is Budapesti Müszaki és Gazdaságtudományi Egyetem, usually abbreviated as BME, which reflects the usual perception that ‘Economics’ is not the central part of BME’s identity. BME is the successor to the Institutum Geometrico-Hydrotechnicum, founded in 1782. After various reorganisations the institution was elevated to university status and operates under the name Királyi József Műegyetem (Royal Joseph University of Technology), becoming the first technical higher education institution in the world to bear the word university in its name (BME, n.d.). The Department of Urban Planning was founded in 1929, and the first professor was the renowned planner László Warga; other eminent professors in education, research and planning practice were György Korompay and Tamás Meggyesi. 

As the mission statement says: ‘The role of the Department of Urban Planning and Design is to connect the fields of environmental design (architecture, landscape architecture, engineering, etc.) and the scope of the analytic experts (sociologists, economists, historians, etc.), and to introduce an interdisciplinary approach into architecture while ensuring the presence of architects in urban design and urban planning projects. Architecture and the city are inseparable fields. They have different places in the education provided by our department, the BSc level being architecture and urban design oriented, while at the MSc and postgraduate level more complex integrating approaches are dominant’ (URB/BME 2021).

There are also other academic institutions in Hungary educating planners, but lack the importance of Budapest.

Brenner, J. (1998): Das Baurecht in Ungarn und seine Wirkungen - Entstehung, Zusammenhänge mit der städtebaulichen Entwicklung, aktueller Stand und Ausblick. First edition, Stuttgart.

Brenner, J. (1999): Budapest Revisited – neue Bausatzung, neue Planungen. Archiv für Kommunalwissenschaften, volume 2.

Brenner, J. (2005): A magyar építésügyi igazgatás és felügyelet kívülröl. Építési Évkönyv 2004, first edition, Budapest.

Brenner, J. (2014): Platzhirsche im Stadtwäldchen. NZZ Neue Zürcher Zeitung. Available at: https://www.nzz.ch/feuilleton/kunst_architektur/platzhirsche-im-stadtwaeldchen-1.18314220. [Accessed 18 November 2020].

Nagy, B. (2005): A település, az épített világ. First edition, Budapest. 

Tóth, Z.; Hübner, M. (n.d.): Településtervezés II. A településtervezés gyakorlati kérdései a területrendezéstöl a településszerkezeti tervig. First edition, Pécs.

[Editorial remark: Where Hungarian laws are directly quoted or cited, the official Hungarian abbreviation (where applicable) is cited along with the original publication date. Specific points of law will be referred to in their amended version (where applicable), hence the paragraph numbers cited may deviate from the original number. Hence, for practical reasons the Harvard referencing system is only partly followed.]