Why Croatia produces suboptimal urban planning - and how to break the cycle

The time for excuses is over

More than three decades have passed since Croatia became an independent state. Although public discourse still occasionally refers to the country as a young democracy, societies that have reached their thirties and forties can no longer justify institutional weaknesses by immaturity. The transitional period ends when a society must stop blaming history and begin taking responsibility for the systems it has built. At a certain point, the alibi of the past ends and the maturity of the present begins.

Urban planning is one of the clearest tests of that maturity. The space in which we live, work, raise children, move and rest reflects the level of social organisation more accurately than any political slogan or economic indicator. When space is poorly planned, that failure is visible every day. It becomes a permanent reminder that we have not succeeded in creating a system that understands how valuable space is and how responsibly it must be managed.

Urban planning as the foundation of quality of life

In developed European countries, urban planning is one of the key criteria of social progress. Quality of life is measured not only by income, but by access to public spaces, green areas, safe streets and well-designed urban environments. Croatia, however, still too often builds with the wrong priorities. Emphasis is placed on short-term interests, speed, improvisation and solutions that fail to consider long-term consequences. The quality of space remains in the shadow of other topics, even though it should be among the most important.

In this context, it is particularly striking that Croatian urban planning almost entirely neglects recreational zones, parks, promenades, cycling corridors and green spaces. Cities largely rely on park structures created during the Austro-Hungarian period, which were already ambitious and carefully conceived, or on a few examples from the Yugoslav era. Contemporary creation of green areas is almost non-existent. New neighbourhoods emerge without parks, promenades or public spaces; plans do not foresee them, investments do not finance them, and cities do not initiate them. As a result, residents in many communities lack simple, walkable access to spaces for recreation, relaxation and time spent in nature. This is a direct blow to public health and quality of life, and in the long term to the attractiveness of cities themselves.

Why do we fail to reach the standards of developed countries?

It is often claimed that part of the cause lies in historical circumstances. Croatia spent decades within a political system that interrupted urban planning traditions and institutional memory. Nevertheless, many experts will argue that urban planning in former Yugoslavia, despite all its contradictions, was more systematic and professional than today’s. There were urban planning institutes, long-term plans, interdisciplinary teams and clear methodological rules. Today, such a system no longer exists. Planning is fragmented, disjointed and often left to administrative structures that lack sufficient knowledge and experience.

If we define urban planning as a discipline meant to ensure balanced, sustainable and functional spatial development, it is difficult to argue that such a system truly functions in Croatia. In most cases, urban planning has been reduced to the preparation of technical documentation, while vision, methodology and interdisciplinarity are largely absent. Plans are adopted to satisfy form, not to deliver a development strategy.

Critical point: lack of knowledge and competence

The deepest problem of Croatian urban planning lies in the lack of knowledge and expertise within local governments. Most cities do not have their own urban planning teams, and decisions about space are made by people without adequate professional backgrounds – lawyers, administrators or political appointees. Urban planning is one of the most complex disciplines of modern society. It requires an understanding of architecture, transport, ecology, economics, sociology, the real estate market and long-term urban trends. Few Croatian administrations are able to encompass such breadth.

This lack of knowledge results in plans that meet legal formalities but fail to create value. Some cities literally repeat the same mistakes for decades because no one has ever presented them with a different way of thinking. The profession has largely disappeared from the process, and when it is included, its role is usually reduced to the technical implementation of political decisions rather than the creation of a professional vision.

Public procurement as a generator of poor urban planning

The public procurement system further deepens the problem. Selecting the lowest-priced offer may be appropriate for goods or equipment, but it is disastrous for professional services. In urban planning, the lowest price almost always means the lowest quality. The result is plans produced in a short timeframe, without sufficient analysis and without an interdisciplinary approach. The long-term damage far outweighs any apparent savings.

The problem is particularly evident in the fact that offices with international experience are evaluated in the same way as offices that have never worked on complex projects. The system gives them the same starting position, and the decision comes down to the lowest price, not the highest expertise. This produces plans that cannot guide development, manage pressures or ensure quality of life. Such a system effectively rewards mediocrity and penalises excellence.

Spatial development without infrastructure: a recipe for universal dissatisfaction

One of the most serious symptoms of poor urban planning in Croatia is the fact that spatial development in many areas progresses without prior provision of communal and transport infrastructure. There was a brief attempt to legally establish an obligation to build infrastructure before issuing permits, but this provision was quickly abandoned after accession to the European Union. The result is the continuation of a model in which new buildings are constructed, but roads, parking, public spaces, playgrounds, schools, kindergartens and sewage systems are not.

This approach produces no winners. Investors pay communal contributions but do not receive infrastructure. Cities use these funds for other purposes, because there is no plan obliging them to build primary infrastructure where development occurs. The public is dissatisfied because existing infrastructure becomes overloaded, often insufficient from the outset, and additional construction renders the entire system dysfunctional. This brings us back to the importance of master planning. Large zones allow coordination among multiple investors, fair distribution of costs, realistic financial calculations and the creation of quality public space. Piecemeal development - plot by plot - can never compete with that.

Cities need their own professional teams

Another important segment is often overlooked: almost no Croatian city has the position of a chief urban planner or an organised professional team with a mandate to shape and oversee spatial development. Urban planning is often conducted ad hoc, without continuity, institutional memory or long-term methodology. Outsourcing experts is not a problem in itself; the problem arises when local administrations lack the capacity to control and manage these processes.

The model of a city urban planner, present in many developed European countries, is essential for Croatia. Such a role would not replace external experts, but act as a coordinator and guardian of the city’s vision. Of course, there is a risk that such a position could become subject to political appointments, but the risk of incompetence and the complete absence of strategic leadership is far greater – and already a reality. Without professional, autonomous urban planning teams, cities cannot make quality decisions about space.

Typology, proportions and aesthetics: lessons we have not learned

Another area in which we lag significantly is typology and architectural guidelines. Many European countries carefully define the appearance, proportions, materiality and aesthetic logic of their settlements. The result is places with clear identity, where contemporary architecture coexists with historical context, and where the visual integrity of space is carefully preserved.

Croatia, however, addresses this issue superficially and unprofessionally. In some areas, flat roofs are banned and this is considered sufficient to define typology. In other cases, balconies are prohibited or restricted, even though a contemporary buyer of a coastal apartment is almost certain not to consider a property without a balcony. This creates a conflict between market needs and rigid, unprofessional rules that fail to understand modern lifestyles. The result is buildings that satisfy neither the market nor the identity of the place. Only an interdisciplinary approach can resolve this, one in which urban planning, architecture, conservation practice and market logic are considered simultaneously.

Conservation authorities as a suppressed but structurally important issue

Conservation protection should be one of the most important elements in preserving historic cities, yet in Croatia it has, unfortunately, often become an obstacle to development. The problem is not the idea of protection itself – which is extremely valuable - but the way it is implemented. Decisions are too often made without an interdisciplinary assessment of context. Conservation authorities sometimes intervene in multi-million-euro investments by prescribing colour shades or banning functional solutions without clear criteria. Entire historic areas are occasionally blocked by indiscriminate and overly broad protection that stifles development instead of guiding it.

Modern conservation must be aligned with development, economics, market needs and the expectations of contemporary life. Cities cannot be museums. They must live, breathe and adapt. Protection that fails to understand this principle does not protect a city; it slowly extinguishes it. What is needed is a modernisation of the conservation system, with strong professional oversight and an interdisciplinary approach, so that protection becomes a partner to urban planning rather than its adversary.

Populism and decision paralysis

The topic of urban planning is further burdened by populism that dominates the public sphere. Social media have created an environment in which everyone has an opinion on everything, regardless of their level of knowledge. Politicians operate under constant pressure, resulting in decisions driven by mass expectations rather than optimal professional solutions. Such a system produces stagnation, frustration and the sense that space is developing chaotically - or not at all.

When one city allows development without control, dissatisfaction arises. When another city, under pressure from civic initiatives, completely blocks development, dissatisfaction also arises. In both cases, what is missing is the most important element: a professional, balanced decision that takes into account the public interest, market reality and the long-term vision of the city. As long as the profession is sidelined and populism assumes the role of regulator, it is difficult to expect quality outcomes.

A clear path forward

Despite these layered challenges, solutions do exist and are entirely concrete. Croatia must redefine the way it approaches space. Urban land consolidation must become a tool for creating logical, functional units. Space should be planned through master plans - large, thoughtfully conceived areas rather than a series of isolated, piecemeal decisions. Local authorities must be enabled to engage the best experts, not the cheapest. The state and cities must develop professional bodies and interdisciplinary advisory groups with the authority and knowledge to make decisions that transcend day-to-day politics.

Why all of this matters

Well-planned space benefits everyone. It provides citizens with a more attractive, organised and functional life. It enables investors to create higher-value products. It brings stability and public trust to politics. It gives professionals room to act professionally. It ensures sustainable economic development for the state and a foundation for affordable housing. There is not a single argument against good urban planning. There is only the cost of poor urban planning - and Croatia has been paying it for a long time.

It is time to abandon improvisation and begin planning space as seriously as we plan the future. Urban planning is not a technical discipline. It is a mirror of society. It is time to decide what kind of image we want to see.

Blog author: Ivan Kovačić