Many European programs and projects, derived from the EU's”Cohesion policy”established by Lisbon Treaty, points to ”economic, social and territorial cohesion”. Many of the projects funded by ERDF, among which Danube Transnational Programmefocus on different themes related to Danube seeking answers and solutions to strengthen the cross-border cooperation and to create a coherent network of valuable assets and capabilities to sustain an inclusive and sustainable development in this region.Particularly, the DANUrB project (http://www.interreg-danube.eu/approved-projects/danurb) has created a vision of Danube as an identifiable ”tourist destination brand and a cultural promenadeat European level, offering thematic routes and development opportunities that can increase the number of visitors and can prolong their stay in the region”.In a critical view on the existing project, we can say that although it also included universities in its consortium, DANUrB did not specifically pursued the creation of an educational framework dedicated to the inclusive development of Danube cities, and did not focus on the students to be the main beneficiary of the trans-disciplinary formative process that regards the development potential of the Danube spaces and landscapes. In the desire for a coherent and more balanced development of the Danube region is essential toconsider the differences inthe existinglevels of development between the various Danube countries and cities and, at the same time, the differences in the problems faced by the big cities/capitals and the small and medium-sized cities (SMCs) along the river.Most of these small and medium-sized cities are confronted with shrinkage processes, labor shortages, loss of local identity together with diminishing ofthe river industry. In many cases they are sprawled or incoherent as spatial development, encountering aggressions on the natural landscapes and loss of the relationship with the river. The notable differences of development between the Lower Danube and the Central-Western Danube come to confront these small and medium size cities, mirroring a series of similarities and/or contrasts, in terms of land reserves, dynamics of peripheries, conflicts between natural landscape and residentialareas, unused buildings and lack of touristic attractions.