Dr. Ante Starčević — neighbourhood profile

District-wide fields (position, terrain, bicycle infrastructure, socio-economic overview) are in district overview — not repeated here.

In plain terms

This is the most important “hidden risk” in the whole district: a large population with an above-average elderly share, ranking 7th most vulnerable of all 218 neighbourhoods in Zagreb — yet it’s not on the city’s official priority shortlist, because that list also requires high population density, and this neighbourhood falls just short on that one measure. Everything else about it (greenery, heat, elderly exposure) says it belongs on the list. It’s also, oddly, the district’s relative bright spot for tree cover — its own vegetation is the best in the district, even though a real shortfall remains.

1. Geography

Field	Value
Area	0.89 km²
Position in the city	Trešnjevka – sjever, western inner ring

2. Demographics

Field	Value
Population	5,893 — the largest MO in the district
Sex	2,725 male · 3,168 female
Age breakdown	722 aged 0–14 · 3,841 aged 15–64 · 1,330 aged 65+
Share aged 0–14	12.3%
Share aged 65+	22.6%
Chronically ill residents	Not tracked anywhere in the data
Education level	District-wide only — see Trešnjevka – sjever district overview
Density	6,621 people/km²

3. Urban form and greenery

Field	Value
Kindergartens, schools, health facilities, fountains	Not available — this is one of three neighbourhoods in the district outside the city’s official facility/refuge dataset, which only covers its 32-neighbourhood priority shortlist
Greenness (NDVI)	0.38 — the best in the district, well above the district average of 0.30
Canopy shortfall	The smallest gap in the district — only 368 hectares needed to close it (versus over 1,000 ha for several neighbours), though the “ambitious” target still implies a much bigger gap (3,973 ha). Closing the realistic gap would only cool the area by an estimated 0.8 °C — the smallest gain in the district, because there’s less room for improvement here to begin with
Site-level field observations	None recorded for this specific neighbourhood — see district overview for the two ground-level studies that exist elsewhere in the district

Worth noting: this neighbourhood is the relative bright spot in a district that an independent academic study found lags badly behind leafy Maksimir on green infrastructure overall — “smallest gap in a badly-vegetated district” is still a real shortfall in absolute terms, just a smaller one than its neighbours.

4. Heat (UHI data)

Field	Value
District heat intensity	+8.98 °C (district-wide figure, see overview)
Heatwave days (2025)	7
Official heat-risk zone	Not mapped by the city’s specific heat-risk workbook — this means it wasn’t assessed by that particular study, not that it’s risk-free
Night-time temperature	19.81 °C — the coolest night reading of any neighbourhood in the district
Modelled daytime air temperature	27.49 °C
Gap between surface and air temperature	14.3 °C — the only neighbourhood in the district where this specific measurement was possible
Hotspot classification	Flagged as hot by the surface-temperature measure, but not by the air-temperature measure

5. How vulnerable is this neighbourhood?

Measure	Value
Main vulnerability score	0.71 — ranks 7th of all 218 neighbourhoods in Zagreb, the highest rank of any neighbourhood in this district
Second vulnerability score (independent model)	Confirms real exposure here, but attributes it more to underlying climate/vegetation conditions than to the elderly population specifically — a slightly different read than the raw elderly share suggests on its own
Daytime elderly-heat exposure	Middling for the district
Night-time elderly-heat exposure	The lowest in the district, consistent with this neighbourhood’s cooler nights and better vegetation
On the city’s official priority shortlist?	No — despite everything above
What’s stacking up here	✅ Large population with above-average elderly share (22.6%, 1,330 people) ✅ Vulnerability rank in the citywide top 10 ❌ Not on the priority shortlist despite this — purely a density-threshold effect ✅ Still carries a real, if comparatively small, canopy shortfall

Bottom line: this is the clearest example anywhere in the district of the priority shortlist’s density cut-off hiding a genuinely high-risk neighbourhood. Ranking 7th of 218 citywide while sitting outside the official 32-neighbourhood list — because of density, not actual vulnerability — means this neighbourhood is worth naming explicitly in any prioritisation discussion, not assumed lower-priority just because it’s absent from that list.

6. Citizen survey signal (2026, wave 1)

Field	Value
Survey respondents from this MO	36
Self-reported heat-burden index	3.12/4 — ranks #4 of the district’s 10 profiled MOs
Survey vulnerability score	0.22 (0–1 scale) — ranks #9 of the 10
Mean support for the 28 proposed interventions	4.45/5
Self-reported working-AC ownership	83%

district overview flags this MO as a “hidden risk” — 7th of 218 citywide on HVI despite missing the priority shortlist on density alone. The survey is more equivocal: with the larger n=36 sample, this MO now ranks 4th of 10 on self-reported burden (up from 5th at the smaller first-wave sample) but still 9th of 10 (second-lowest) on survey vulnerability — burden and vulnerability point in different directions here, not just “inconclusive.” Worth another look rather than either confirming or dismissing the “hidden risk” framing.

Data notes

The “outside the priority 32” pattern and why it happens is explained in MO master table’s own analysis (the density threshold isn’t a hard cliff — several neighbourhoods just below it score similarly to ones just above it).
Citizen survey figures (respondents, self-reported burden, vulnerability, policy support, AC ownership) come from UHI citizen survey — results & key findings (2026, wave 1) (notes) (Citizen survey data), n=36 for this MO (updated 2026-09-08, up from 28 in the first snapshot) — above the n≥5 floor used across published profiles for MO-level survey figures.
Full column-by-column sourcing: Neighbourhood profile template.