Silvije Strahimir Kranjčević — neighbourhood profile

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

In plain terms

The most densely populated neighbourhood in the district, with an above-average elderly share and zero drinking fountains within a 10-minute walk. The one thing working in its favour is genuinely good park access — the best of any neighbourhood here — which existing vulnerability scores don’t fully credit as an offsetting factor. A practical read: this is a good candidate for a targeted fix (like a drinking fountain) that would pair well with park access that’s already strong, rather than a neighbourhood needing everything built from scratch.

1. Geography

Field	Value
Area	0.49 km²
Position in the city	Central Trešnjevka – sjever

2. Demographics

Field	Value
Population	5,787
Sex	2,678 male · 3,109 female
Age breakdown	765 aged 0–14 · 3,734 aged 15–64 · 1,288 aged 65+
Share aged 0–14	13.2%
Share aged 65+	22.3%
Chronically ill residents	Not tracked anywhere in the data
Education level	District-wide only — see Trešnjevka – sjever district overview
Density	11,810 people/km² — the highest of the ten neighbourhoods in the district

3. Urban form and greenery

Field	Value
Kindergartens	2
Elementary schools	1
High schools	0
Health facilities (incl. pharmacies)	2
Sport facilities	4
All facilities combined	9
Drinking fountains within a 5/10/15-minute walk	0 / 0 / 0
Nearest park	7 minutes’ walk (0.37 km)
Parks within 5/10/15 minutes	0 / 4 / 28 — the most of any neighbourhood in the district
Nearest heat-refuge point	6 minutes’ walk — Teniski centar HTK Zagreb, a tennis facility
Refuges within 5/10/15 minutes	0 / 9 / 14
Greenness (NDVI)	0.30, right at the district average
Canopy shortfall	An estimated 580 hectares of additional tree canopy needed to fully offset local heat (2,565 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	20.39 °C
Modelled daytime air temperature	27.47 °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 #24 of 218 neighbourhoods citywide
Second vulnerability score (independent model)	Also flags this as vulnerable, attributing it mainly to the population living here rather than to the underlying climate — though its confidence in this particular estimate is comparatively low (the weakest local model fit of any neighbourhood in the district where one could be computed)
Daytime elderly-heat exposure	Middling for the district
Night-time elderly-heat exposure	Third-highest in the district
On the city’s official priority shortlist?	Yes
What’s stacking up here	✅ Highest population density in the district ✅ Above-average elderly share (22.3%) ✅ 0 fountains within 10 minutes ✅ Orange heat-risk zone ❌ Good park access (28 within 15 minutes) is a genuine offsetting factor the scores above don’t fully credit

Bottom line: the district’s most crowded neighbourhood, with elderly share and heat risk both above the district’s typical level — but also its best park access. A targeted fix like a drinking fountain would compound with already-good park proximity, rather than having to solve access from scratch.

6. Citizen survey signal (2026, wave 1)

Field	Value
Survey respondents from this MO	71
Self-reported heat-burden index	3.03/4 — ranks #6 of the district’s 10 profiled MOs
Survey vulnerability score	0.26 (0–1 scale) — ranks #4 of the 10
Mean support for the 28 proposed interventions	4.68/5
Self-reported working-AC ownership	92%

Mid-pack on self-reported burden (6th of 10), but survey vulnerability moved up to 4th of 10 with the larger sample (n=71, up from 6th). Above-district-average support for interventions (4.68/5 vs. the district’s own top score, Antun Mihanović’s 4.75/5), not the highest in the district.

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=71 for this MO (updated 2026-09-08, up from 56 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.