I'd have many problems with some of the ideas put forward in there (eg. Emil Boc's role in Cluj's development for instance is highly overrated-- a cost-benefit analysis would most likely arrive at the opposite conclusion; the whole idea of the article is to convince people to invest in advertised property on that site, hence the general upward bias in the assessment; there is then the entirely ignored idea of spurious rises in property price, aka a possible bubble on everybody's language etc.-- but let's ignore all the shortcomings for the moment), but, overall, this short (two months old) article from 'Property Secrets' makes an interesting point. E.g., it sums up quite well the idea that Romanian cities have recently engaged in a tough (but welcome) competition to attract investment and expand (in multiple dimensions). And I tend to agree that Cluj-Napoca is, in several ways, on the right path; as for being the "second city" in Romania, that's a known known, so to speak, for some time (neah, neither Iasi, nor Constanta can beat us there, if you ask me). But the comparison term should be the world's league of second cities though; true ambitions should transcend national borders. Especially when it's about Romania's borders.