Nikola Tesla — neighbourhood profile

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

In plain terms

This neighbourhood has more schools than anywhere else in the district (three high schools, plus a kindergarten and elementary school) sitting in a heat-hotspot zone with an above-average elderly share — meaning both children at school and older residents share the same exposed ground. It has the best facility coverage and closest park in the district, but still zero drinking fountains within 10 minutes’ walk.

1. Geography

Field	Value
Area	0.36 km²
Position in the city	Central Trešnjevka – sjever

2. Demographics

Field	Value
Population	3,973
Sex	1,834 male · 2,139 female
Age breakdown	505 aged 0–14 · 2,562 aged 15–64 · 906 aged 65+
Share aged 0–14	12.7%
Share aged 65+	22.8%
Chronically ill residents	Not tracked anywhere in the data
Education level	District-wide only — see Trešnjevka – sjever district overview
Density	11,036 people/km² — second-highest in the district

3. Urban form and greenery

Field	Value
Kindergartens	2
Elementary schools	1
High schools	3 — the most of any neighbourhood in the district
Health facilities (incl. pharmacies)	2
Sport facilities	0
All facilities combined	8
Drinking fountains within a 5/10/15-minute walk	0 / 0 / 1 — the only neighbourhood in the district with a fountain within 15 minutes
Nearest park	Under 1 minute’s walk — the closest of any neighbourhood in the district
Parks within 5/10/15 minutes	4 / 7 / 11
Nearest heat-refuge point	7 minutes’ walk — an unnamed sport field
Refuges within 5/10/15 minutes	0 / 3 / 13
Greenness (NDVI)	0.30, right at the district average
Canopy shortfall	An estimated 426 hectares of additional tree canopy needed to fully offset local heat (1,884 ha for a more ambitious target); closing the realistic gap would cool the area by roughly 2.2 °C
Site-level field observations	This neighbourhood sits at the edge of the same tram-stop/pedestrian corridor covered by the district’s two ground-level studies (see Stara Trešnjevka’s profile for the detail) — neither study can confirm exactly which side of the neighbourhood boundary its points fall on

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	Orange — second-highest risk category
Night-time temperature	20.21 °C
Modelled daytime air temperature	27.49 °C
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	0.62 — ranks #25 of 218 neighbourhoods citywide
Second vulnerability score (independent model)	Also flags this as vulnerable, reading the cause as underlying climate/heat conditions rather than the population itself — a different emphasis than several neighbours in this district
Daytime elderly-heat exposure	Second-highest in the district, after Antun Mihanović
Night-time elderly-heat exposure	Fourth-highest in the district
On the city’s official priority shortlist?	Yes
What’s stacking up here	✅ Above-average elderly share (22.8%) ✅ Three high schools clustered with the elderly population — children and older residents co-exposed ✅ 0 fountains within 10 minutes ✅ Orange heat-risk zone ❌ Closest park in the district is a genuine mitigating factor

Bottom line: a school-heavy neighbourhood where both ends of the age-vulnerability spectrum — schoolchildren and a sizeable elderly population — share the same exposed ground. Worth weighing a vegetation-first intervention here (since the second model reads the cause as climate/heat-driven, not demography-driven) against a more targeted elderly-support approach.

6. Citizen survey signal (2026, wave 1)

Field	Value
Survey respondents from this MO	38
Self-reported heat-burden index	2.92/4 — ranks #10 of the district’s 10 profiled MOs
Survey vulnerability score	0.21 (0–1 scale) — ranks #10 of the 10
Mean support for the 28 proposed interventions	4.45/5
Self-reported working-AC ownership	100%

Now the lowest self-reported burden of the ten (it and Rudeš swapped places as more responses came in — see Rudeš’s profile), and still the lowest survey vulnerability score of all ten MOs — a real divergence from its HVI rank of 25/218 (mid-pack), which flags it as moderately vulnerable. This MO also reports the highest working-AC ownership of the ten (100%), the only one of the ten at that level — plausibly part of why felt burden is lowest here despite the official model’s mid-pack read, though the survey doesn’t break AC ownership down by age within an MO, so this is a district-level correlation, not a confirmed causal link for this MO’s specific 65+ residents.

Data notes

Night-time elderly-exposure figure comes from a GitHub-repository dataset not yet included in the published MO master table — see district overview’s Data notes.
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=38 for this MO (updated 2026-09-08, up from 31 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.