Rudeš — neighbourhood profile

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

In plain terms

Rudeš is the district’s largest and most physically extreme neighbourhood — the biggest population, the biggest tree-canopy shortfall, no drinking fountain anywhere nearby, and the only neighbourhood in the district where both the surface and the air are independently flagged as unusually hot. It’s also in the city’s official red (highest) heat-risk zone. The one thing that pulls it back from the very top of the vulnerability ranking is its elderly share, which is the lowest of the district’s well-covered neighbourhoods — so this is a “many people at real risk” story rather than an “old, fragile population” story.

1. Geography

Field	Value
Area	1.11 km² — the largest MO in the district
Position in the city	Western edge of Trešnjevka – sjever, bordering Črnomerec
Notable features	Sportsko-rekreacijski centar Rudeš, a sports centre 3–4 minutes’ walk from the neighbourhood’s centre — the nearest heat-refuge point

2. Demographics

Field	Value
Population	9,559 — largest in the district
Sex	4,495 male · 5,064 female
Age breakdown	1,506 aged 0–14 · 6,381 aged 15–64 · 1,672 aged 65+
Share aged 0–14	15.8%
Share aged 65+	17.5% — the lowest of the district’s seven well-covered neighbourhoods
Chronically ill residents	Not tracked anywhere in the data
Education level	District-wide only — see Trešnjevka – sjever district overview
Density	8,612 people/km²

3. Urban form and greenery

Field	Value
Kindergartens	4
Elementary schools	1
High schools	0
Health facilities (incl. pharmacies)	2
Sport facilities	4
All facilities combined	11 — tied for the most in the district
Drinking fountains within a 5/10/15-minute walk	0 / 0 / 0 — none within any distance checked
Nearest park	5 minutes’ walk (0.28 km)
Parks within 5/10/15 minutes	0 / 7 / 15
Nearest heat-refuge point	3 minutes’ walk — the sports centre named above
Refuges within 5/10/15 minutes	2 / 7 / 9
Greenness (NDVI)	0.30, close to the district average
Canopy shortfall	The largest in the district — an estimated 1,383 hectares of additional tree canopy would be needed to fully offset local heat (5,878 ha for a more ambitious target); closing the realistic gap would cool the area by roughly 2.3 °C
Site-level field observations	None recorded for this specific neighbourhood — the district’s two ground-level studies (tram-stop shade observation, resident mapping) both cluster about 1 km east, near Trešnjevački trg

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	Red — the highest-risk category
Night-time temperature	19.96 °C
Modelled daytime air temperature	27.49 °C
Gap between surface and air temperature	13.65 °C
Hotspot classification	Flagged as unusually hot on both the surface-temperature measure and the air-temperature measure — the only neighbourhood in the district where both agree. Everywhere else in the district, only one of the two is flagged

5. How vulnerable is this neighbourhood?

Measure	Value
Main vulnerability score	0.67 — ranks #15 of 218 neighbourhoods citywide
Second vulnerability score (independent model)	Also flags this as a “critical hotspot,” attributing the risk mainly to the sheer number of people exposed rather than to an old-age-skewed population
Daytime elderly-heat exposure	Lowest of the district’s well-covered neighbourhoods, consistent with its low elderly share
Night-time elderly-heat exposure	Also the second-lowest in the district
On the city’s official priority shortlist?	Yes
What’s stacking up here	✅ Red heat-risk zone · ✅ Largest canopy shortfall in the district · ✅ No drinking fountain nearby · ✅ Simultaneously hot by both surface and air measures (rare in this district) · ✅ Largest population in the district · ❌ Elderly share is comparatively the district’s lowest

Bottom line: Rudeš is the district’s clearest physical “hotspot” — hottest, driest of greenery, worst water access — but its residents skew younger than the rest of the district. That means the case for intervening here rests on sheer numbers of people affected (9,559, more than any other neighbourhood in the district), not on an elderly-vulnerability argument the way it does elsewhere in Trešnjevka – sjever.

6. Citizen survey signal (2026, wave 1)

Field	Value
Survey respondents from this MO	50
Self-reported heat-burden index	2.93/4 — ranks #9 of the district’s 10 profiled MOs
Survey vulnerability score	0.25 (0–1 scale) — ranks #6 of the 10
Mean support for the 28 proposed interventions	4.47/5
Self-reported working-AC ownership	86%

The district’s largest population and hottest by physical measures (red heat-risk zone, HVI rank 15/218, on the priority shortlist) — but essentially tied with Nikola Tesla for the lowest self-reported heat burden of the ten profiled MOs (2.93 vs. 2.92 — a 0.01 gap that isn’t a meaningful difference at these sample sizes; Nikola Tesla is now technically lowest, having overtaken Rudeš as more responses came in between the first and second data pulls). Whichever of the two is precisely last, the pattern holds: physically hottest does not mean most-felt here. This is a within-district exception to the citywide pattern, not an illustration of it: district-wide, perceived heat burden actually moderately-to-strongly tracks physical heat intensity (r=0.61, among the 16 districts with a reliable sample — see Key findings); Rudeš itself is simply one MO that bucks that broader trend.

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 for detail.
“Ambitious” canopy target and the associated cooling estimate (9.92 °C) are the maximum-effort scenario; the 2.33 °C figure above is the more realistic one.
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=50 for this MO (updated 2026-09-08, up from 36 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.