The Netherlands has a wide range of partnerships in urban area (re)development, which differ greatly from one another and can be deployed depending on the local situation, scope, parties involved and state of the economy. Over the past decades, these models have grown and been evaluated within the context of rapidly changing social planning development, with the government increasingly leaving implementation to the market. As a result, private parties have built up considerable land positions in the expectation of being able to realize them in the long term. Land ownership provides a significant dominant position, given that the landowner has the right to (re)develop. When there are several landowners, this fragmented land ownership can be an important barrier to urban area redevelopment. Before the economic crisis, many areas were transformed by being all properties of one party. The development rights model and the joint venture model were often used to solve the problem of fragmented ownership. Both models require a large capital requirement from the initiators of transformation, as in both cases all land (and buildings) have to be acquired in the plan area (Hobma, Heurkens, & van der Wal, 2019). Since the crisis, the acquisition of land and buildings for transformation has been approached differently. A possible strategy applied in urban area redevelopment with fragmented ownership is: Developing Apart Together (DAT). The partnership DAT offers both public and private parties the opportunity to retain land for area redevelopment. In which the initiating party sets out a vision for the redevelopment of an area, but does not ending up by owning the area. Surprisingly little information is available about the partnership DAT. What can be found is limited exclusively to vague definitions. Therefore, the aim of this research is to provide insight into the experiences of public and private parties with the DAT partnership This includes providing insight into the relationship and agreements made between the two parties. It also provides insight into how the parties can fulfil both the area redevelopment project and deal with fragmented ownership. This is done by answering the following main question: “What insights does an initial study of the start-up phase of developing apart together (DAT) provide?”. Two research methods were central to this research. The study started with a literature review and followed by an empirical research. From the literature it can be concluded that the insights concerning DAT are limited. As far as the characteristics are concerned, DAT is described in the literature as a public-private partnership in which a common general vision has been drawn up. There is no strong governance structure and land transactions are limited. The literature also shows that within a DAT model there is an area organisation that takes care of issues that cross plots. In practice, these characteristics are partly similar, but other issues are also specifically mentioned. The shared vision and/or desire to transform corresponds with the literature. On the other hand, the use of anterior agreements is often mentioned and turns out to be an important part of the financial and legal agreements within a DAT model and something that is not mentioned in the literature. Another thing that is not mentioned in the literature either, but which emerges several times in practice, is the number of agreements made for social facilities. Literature and practice correspond well with regard to the conditions for applying a DAT. From the literature it became clear that these are transformation areas with fragmented ownership. In other words, there are many different owners present in the area. This is confirmed in practice. It is emphasised in the literature that the public and private parties form a coalition of the willing. This is not mentioned in practice. In terms of variants, literature and practice also correspond. Nevertheless, it should be mentioned here that DAT is still at a too early stage to be able to conclude whether there are actually different variants and where they differ and/or correspond. In both literature and practice the pace at which area developments are progressing is described as low. Because many parties are involved within such area developments with different ambitions and interests, plans are less likely to get off the ground. This is also recognized in practice as an important barrier. In the literature, non-cooperating parties are seen as an obstacle. This is not specifically mentioned in practice. In practice, however, the distrust towards the public parties is mentioned. Municipalities do not seem to have confidence because they often fail to keep their agreements. Finally, the difference in knowledge in which this cooperation is based is named as an obstacle by the many different parties.