Split 3 is a major urban planning and residential development in Split, Croatia, initiated in the late 1960s to address the city’s rapid population growth during the mid-20th century. Located in the eastern part of Split, this large-scale neighborhood was designed to house up to 50,000 residents and is considered one of the most significant urban projects in former Yugoslavia. Conceived as a response to the housing crisis in a booming Mediterranean city, Split 3 aimed to create a humane, pedestrian-friendly urban environment, challenging the rigid functionalist principles of modernist urban planning (e.g., those of CIAM and Le Corbusier’s Charte d’Athènes). The project is celebrated for its innovative approach to mixed-use development, street-oriented design, and integration of civic amenities, though it remains partially incomplete due to historical and economic disruptions.
In the second half of the 20th century, Split’s population grew
rapidly due to industrialization and migration, creating an urgent need
for new housing. By the 1960s, the city’s historic core and earlier
expansions could no longer accommodate the influx of residents. In 1968,
a national competition was launched to design a new city district, with
the goal of creating a modern, livable neighborhood that prioritized
residents’ quality of life over purely functionalist ideals. The winning
proposal, codenamed “Žnjan,” was submitted by a team of Slovenian urban
planners from the Urban Planning Institute of Slovenia: Vladimir Braco
Mušič, Marjan Bežan, and Nives Starc. Their design, finalized in 1969,
became the blueprint for Split 3, with construction beginning in the
1970s.
The project emerged during a period of ideological debate
in urban planning. Globally, architects and planners were critiquing the
dehumanizing aspects of functionalist cities—characterized by isolated
high-rises, car-centric layouts, and segregated land uses. Split 3 was
envisioned as a counterpoint, drawing inspiration from thinkers like
Jane Jacobs, who advocated for vibrant, mixed-use urban spaces, and Aldo
van Eyck, who emphasized human-scale design. The project also reflected
Yugoslavia’s unique socialist context, balancing state-driven
development with local innovation.
Split 3 was designed as a cohesive urban district with a focus on
pedestrian streets, mixed-use development, and human-centric planning.
The architects sought to integrate residential, commercial, and civic
functions while preserving Split’s Mediterranean lifestyle, where
socializing and outdoor living are central. Key features include:
Urban Layout
Street-Oriented Design: Unlike functionalist cities
with sprawling, disconnected layouts, Split 3 prioritized a network of
residential streets connected by a central artery. These streets were
designed as social spaces, encouraging interaction among residents. The
layout fostered a sense of community, with streets serving as “places of
encounter” rather than mere transit routes.
Neighborhood Units: The
district was divided into smaller units, each housing up to 8,000
residents. These units were self-contained, with schools, kindergartens,
markets, banks, and green spaces, ensuring residents had access to daily
needs within walking distance. This modular approach allowed for
scalability and functionality.
Mixed-Use Development: Ground floors
of buildings, especially at intersections and squares, were reserved for
commercial spaces like shops, cafes, and offices. This ensured lively
streetscapes and reduced the need for residents to travel far for
services.
Residential Architecture
High-Rise Blocks: The
district features clusters of high-rise residential towers,
strategically oriented south to maximize sea views and natural light.
These towers, often clad in concrete, were designed to provide modern
apartments with balconies, catering to Split’s coastal climate.
Low-Rise Housing: Alongside towers, low-rise buildings were included for
individual or smaller-scale housing, adding variety to the urban fabric.
Green Spaces: Between streets and buildings, landscaped areas were
planned for recreation, including parks, playgrounds, and sports
facilities. These spaces were intended to enhance livability and support
community activities.
Civic and Cultural Amenities
The
original plan envisioned a rich array of public facilities, including a
theater, concert hall, cinema, museum, gallery, library, archive, hotel,
health center, and even spaces for embassies. These were meant to
elevate Split 3 beyond a mere housing estate, making it a cultural and
administrative hub. However, many of these ambitious elements were never
realized.
Integration with Topography
Split 3’s design
responded to its coastal and hilly setting. The district’s towers were
positioned to frame views of the Adriatic Sea and the Marjan Hill, while
shaded windows and deep balconies mitigated the intense summer heat and
humidity. The layout also navigated Split’s constrained geography,
bordered by mountains and the sea, ensuring efficient use of space.
Construction of Split 3 began in the 1970s but faced significant
hurdles:
Yugoslav National Army (JNA) Influence: As a major investor,
the JNA prioritized its own housing needs, diverting resources from the
original plan. This led to deviations from the architects’ vision.
1979 Mediterranean Games: Split’s focus shifted to hosting the 1979
Mediterranean Games, redirecting funds and attention to sports
infrastructure. This further stalled Split 3’s development.
Loss of
Oversight: The Slovenian architects returned to Ljubljana, leaving the
project without consistent urban planning supervision. Local authorities
and smaller-scale projects filled the gap, resulting in fragmented
implementation.
Economic and Political Shifts: The transition from
socialism to capitalism in the 1990s, coupled with the Yugoslav Wars,
halted progress. The Urban Planning Institute in Split struggled to
maintain momentum, and the project remains unfinished today.
Despite these challenges, Split 3 was partially realized, with
neighborhoods like Smrdečac and Žnjan showcasing the project’s
innovative urban concepts. The built portions include notable
architectural achievements, such as residential towers by local
architects like Dinko Kovačić, Frane Gotovac, and Ivo Radić, which are
considered among Split’s finest modern structures.
Split 3 holds a unique place in Split’s identity and global urban
planning discourse:
Local Significance: For residents, Split 3 is
more than a housing estate; it’s a living neighborhood with a strong
sense of community. The pedestrian streets, green spaces, and sea views
have fostered a cherished lifestyle, with residents recalling carefree
childhoods playing in the shadow of the “gentle giants” (the towers).
The district’s design aligns with Split’s Mediterranean ethos,
prioritizing outdoor socializing.
Global Recognition: Split 3 has
been studied by urban planners worldwide for its critique of
functionalist urbanism and its human-centric approach. It has been the
subject of books, articles, and a documentary film, with experts
analyzing its successes and shortcomings. The project was praised by
figures like Jane Jacobs, who visited Split and noted its
pedestrian-friendly design in 1981.
Exhibitions and Legacy: In 2018,
the 50th anniversary of Split 3 was marked by a manifestation titled “50
Years of Split 3,” featuring exhibitions, lectures, and roundtables.
Curated by urban planner Jelena Borota and academic Višnja Kukoč, the
event highlighted the project’s historical context, architectural
drawings, and daily life through photographs, aiming to engage both
professionals and the public.
While Split 3 is celebrated, it has faced criticism:
Incomplete Vision: The absence of planned cultural and civic facilities
(e.g., theater, museum) limits the district’s role as a comprehensive
urban center. The unfinished state is a reminder of Yugoslavia’s
economic and political constraints.
Aesthetic Perceptions: Some view
the concrete high-rises as stark or prison-like, especially from certain
angles. However, residents and defenders argue that the design
prioritizes functionality and climate adaptation, with shaded windows
and sea-oriented layouts.
Urban Hell Debate: Posts on platforms like
Reddit’s r/UrbanHell have sparked debate, with some calling Split 3 a
monolithic concrete sprawl, while others praise its livability and
integration with the Mediterranean landscape. These contrasting views
reflect broader discussions about socialist-era architecture.
Today,
Split 3 remains a vibrant residential area, home to tens of thousands of
Split’s residents. Its streets, like R. Bošković and Papandopulo, are
lively with local commerce and community life. The district’s partial
realization still serves as a model for urban planners, demonstrating
how large-scale projects can prioritize human needs within constrained
budgets and geographies.
Split 3 is a landmark in the evolution of urban thought,
contributing to the shift from functionalist to human-centric
design. Its key contributions include:
Challenging CIAM
Principles: By rejecting isolated zoning and car-centric layouts,
Split 3 aligned with the structuralist movement, emphasizing
interconnected, socially vibrant spaces.
Scalable Interventions:
The project showed that humane urban development could be achieved
through smaller, achievable interventions within existing city
boundaries, reducing infrastructure costs.
Mediterranean
Adaptation: The design respected Split’s climate and culture,
integrating sea views, shaded spaces, and pedestrian zones to
enhance livability.
The project’s partial implementation is seen
as a valuable experiment, offering lessons for modern urban
planning, particularly in rapidly growing cities. Its emphasis on
mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods resonates with
contemporary “new urbanism” principles.
For visitors, Split 3 offers a contrast to Split’s historic core, including Diocletian’s Palace. Guided tours, such as those offered by Dalmatian Lifestyle, explore the district’s urban promenade, campus, and key streets, highlighting its socialist-era architecture and modern-day vibrancy. These tours, typically 3 hours long, start in the late afternoon and are ideal for a second day in Split after visiting the city center. Visitors can appreciate the district’s scale, sea views, and community atmosphere, often enjoying a meal or coffee at local establishments.