Stara Trešnjevka — 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 district’s most densely populated and warmest-at-night neighbourhood, and home to Trešnjevački trg — the district’s central square and tram stop, and the exact site of the city’s one active shading pilot. Field observation confirms that tram stop has almost no natural shade, with riders visibly improvising shelter. What makes this neighbourhood distinct from most of its neighbours: its elderly share is below the district average, so the case for intervening here rests on density and public-space heat, not an elderly-vulnerability argument — a good match for the pilot’s own framing as a general comfort measure rather than an elderly-targeted one.

1. Geography

Field	Value
Area	0.48 km²
Position in the city	Central Trešnjevka – sjever
Notable features	Trešnjevački trg — the district’s central square and market, and the exact site of the active shading pilot (north side, near Konzum, at the Trešnjevka/NAMA tram stop)

2. Demographics

Field	Value
Population	6,499
Sex	2,972 male · 3,527 female
Age breakdown	824 aged 0–14 · 4,471 aged 15–64 · 1,204 aged 65+
Share aged 0–14	12.7%
Share aged 65+	18.5% — below the district average
Chronically ill residents	Not tracked anywhere in the data
Education level	District-wide only — see Trešnjevka – sjever district overview
Density	13,540 people/km² — the highest in the district

3. Urban form and greenery

Field	Value
Kindergartens	1
Elementary schools	0
High schools	2
Health facilities (incl. pharmacies)	3
Sport facilities	0
All facilities combined	6
Drinking fountains within a 5/10/15-minute walk	0 / 0 / 0
Nearest park	1 minute’s walk — the best in the district
Parks within 5/10/15 minutes	2 / 8 / 14
Nearest heat-refuge point	Under 2 minutes’ walk — the closest of any neighbourhood in the district (an unnamed sport field)
Refuges within 5/10/15 minutes	1 / 1 / 7
Greenness (NDVI)	0.30, right at the district average
Canopy shortfall	An estimated 568 hectares of additional tree canopy needed to fully offset local heat (2,512 ha for a more ambitious target); closing the realistic gap would cool the area by roughly 2.2 °C
Site-level field observations	Direct evidence exists for this neighbourhood’s pilot site. A field study on 3 August 2026 found the tram stop here has almost no usable shade before ~19:00 — riders improvise shelter using a pole or ad panel, or walk 20 m away to stand near a building instead. A separate resident-mapping exercise independently flagged an existing water fountain nearby as a well-used gathering spot — notable, since every neighbourhood in this district otherwise shows zero fountains within a 10-minute walk — plus a potential linear park and two informal “desire paths” as already-identified greening opportunities

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	20.54 °C — the warmest night reading of any neighbourhood in the district
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	0.60 — ranks #29 of 218 neighbourhoods citywide
Second vulnerability score (independent model)	Reads this one as driven mainly by climate/heat conditions rather than the population — consistent with its below-average elderly share, the lowest demographic-sensitivity reading in the district
Daytime elderly-heat exposure	Below the district average
Night-time elderly-heat exposure	Also below the district average — its warm nights are offset here by a comparatively younger population
On the city’s official priority shortlist?	Yes
What’s stacking up here	✅ Highest population density in the district ✅ Warmest night temperature in the district ✅ 0 fountains within 10 minutes ❌ Best park and refuge access in the district — a genuine mitigating factor ❌ Below-average elderly share

Bottom line: the district’s densest and warmest-at-night neighbourhood, but also its best-served for park and refuge access — and its elderly share is below the district average. That combination is exactly why the active shading pilot here is framed as a general public-comfort measure (busy square, hot tram stop) rather than a targeted elderly-support intervention, unlike the case for several other neighbourhoods in this district.

6. Citizen survey signal (2026, wave 1)

Field	Value
Survey respondents from this MO	113
Self-reported heat-burden index	3.09/4 — ranks #5 of the district’s 10 profiled MOs
Survey vulnerability score	0.25 (0–1 scale) — ranks #5 of the 10
Mean support for the 28 proposed interventions	4.50/5
Self-reported working-AC ownership	88%

Mid-district on both survey measures (5th of 10 on burden, 5th on vulnerability) — broadly consistent with its HVI rank of 29/218 (7th of the ten), no notable divergence. Largest survey sample of the ten MOs (n=113).

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.
The two field studies referenced above cover the whole tram-stop/pedestrian corridor around Trešnjevački trg, not this neighbourhood’s boundary specifically — the same corridor slightly overlaps neighbouring Nikola Tesla.
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=113 for this MO (updated 2026-09-08, up from 88 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.