One of the questions when undertaking comparative research into local politics and processes of collective organization is what frame should be used. In recent decades, many scholars have opted for the urban regime. There is however much debate about the usefulness of this concept for comparative purposes, with the urban regime accused of being theoretically both too narrow as well as too general. In three Dutch case studies, researchers have sought a middle way by applying the urban regime's four building blocks (agenda, coalition, resources, and scheme of cooperation) as a heuristic framework. The results show that this approach has several advantages, especially for comparative purposes, as it provides a clear oversight as to which agendas dominate where and when, and how certain coalitions, resources, and schemes of cooperation align. These benefits however require close attention to certain points: researchers should interpret the building blocks consistently and try to avoid overlap and repetition between them.