Pongračevo — 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 single finding in the whole district, and it isn’t visible in the standard ranking at all. Pongračevo’s elderly share (22.7%) looks unremarkable on its own, so it never made the city’s official priority list. But a separate check of care-home records shows that almost all of that elderly population — 1,229 of 1,567 people — actually live independently, not in an institution. That’s the largest number of independently-living elderly residents found anywhere in a citywide spot-check, in a district that’s the second-hottest in Zagreb. On every other measure — worst park access in the district, second-largest canopy shortfall, no drinking fountain anywhere nearby, and the district’s highest score on a second, independent vulnerability model — this neighbourhood already looks like a strong candidate for attention. The care-home finding is what tips it from “worth a look” to “arguably the strongest case for action in this entire district.”

1. Geography

Field	Value
Area	0.64 km²
Position in the city	Trešnjevka – sjever

2. Demographics

Field	Value
Population	6,914 — second-largest in the district
Sex	3,100 male · 3,814 female
Age breakdown	1,052 aged 0–14 · 4,295 aged 15–64 · 1,567 aged 65+
Share aged 0–14	15.2% — highest child share in the district
Share aged 65+	22.7% (1,567 people)
Independently-living elderly residents	1,229 people (78% of the 65+ count) — only 338 of the 1,567 live in the local care home, the lowest institutional share of any neighbourhood checked citywide (see In plain terms above)
Chronically ill residents	Not tracked anywhere in the data
Education level	District-wide only — see Trešnjevka – sjever district overview
Density	10,803 people/km²

3. Urban form and greenery

Field	Value
Kindergartens	2
Elementary schools	3
High schools	0
Health facilities (incl. pharmacies)	3
Sport facilities	3
All facilities combined	11 — tied for the most in the district
Drinking fountains within a 5/10/15-minute walk	0 / 0 / 0
Nearest park	8 minutes’ walk — the worst park access of any neighbourhood in the district
Parks within 5/10/15 minutes	0 / 1 / 8
Nearest heat-refuge point	4 minutes’ walk — an unnamed sport field
Refuges within 5/10/15 minutes	3 / 6 / 10 — the best 5-minute refuge access in the district, despite the worst park access
Greenness (NDVI)	0.30, right at the district average
Canopy shortfall	Second-largest in the district after Rudeš — an estimated 758 hectares needed to fully offset local heat (3,350 ha for a more ambitious target); closing the realistic gap would cool the area by roughly 2.2 °C
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

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	20.40 °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	0.61 — ranks #28 of 218 neighbourhoods citywide
Second vulnerability score (independent model)	The highest of any neighbourhood in this district — this model weighs it more heavily than the main score does, attributing it mainly to the population living here
Daytime elderly-heat exposure	Third-highest in the district
Night-time elderly-heat exposure	Second-highest in the district
On the city’s official priority shortlist?	Yes
What’s stacking up here	✅ Second-largest population in the district (6,914) ✅ Highest child share in the district (15.2%) ✅ Largest independently-living elderly population found anywhere in the citywide spot-check (1,229) ✅ 0 fountains within 10 minutes ✅ Worst park access in the district ✅ Second-largest canopy shortfall ✅ Highest score of any neighbourhood here on the second vulnerability model

Bottom line: every measure available points the same direction here. This neighbourhood ranks only middling on the city’s main vulnerability score, but that score doesn’t know about the care-home correction — and once you account for it, Pongračevo likely has more heat-exposed, independently-living elderly residents than almost anywhere else the city has checked. It doesn’t currently appear on the official priority list at all. Worth flagging directly to whoever owns that list.

6. Citizen survey signal (2026, wave 1)

Field	Value
Survey respondents from this MO	55
Self-reported heat-burden index	3.14/4 — ranks #3 of the district’s 10 profiled MOs
Survey vulnerability score	0.23 (0–1 scale) — ranks #8 of the 10
Mean support for the 28 proposed interventions	4.59/5
Self-reported working-AC ownership	93%

3rd-highest self-reported burden of the ten, consistent with district overview’s care-home-adjusted finding that this MO likely has the largest independently-living elderly population in the district.

Data notes

The independently-living-elderly figure comes from a targeted, non-personal, aggregate check of the city’s care-home register against four of the city’s highest-elderly-share neighbourhoods — Pongračevo was one of the four checked, not a citywide count. See Elderly distribution per MO (notes) for the full method and the other three neighbourhoods checked.
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=55 for this MO (updated 2026-09-08, up from 41 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.