·
All episodes
Mario Uroš
Episode · #660

ZGRADONAČELNIK Mario Uroš

Guest Mario UrošHosted by Tin BašićMay 3, 2026
About this episode
What you'll hear in this conversation

Four years after the 2020 Zagreb earthquake, the question of whether Croatia has truly addressed the state of its buildings remains. The reconstruction of Zagreb and Banija has been a complex, often frustrating undertaking, marked by slow starts and the sheer scale of the challenge. Mario Uroš, an associate professor at the Faculty of Civil Engineering in Zagreb and a member of the Croatian Centre for Earthquake Engineering, offers an insider's view on the progress, the compromises, and the hidden complexities of rebuilding a city under the constraints of funding, heritage, and practical reality. He explains why a building deemed 'safe to occupy' might still not be fully secure, and why some structures, despite severe damage, could not simply be torn down and replaced. This conversation explores the often-unseen trade-offs made when an entire region attempts to recover from a natural disaster.

Insights from the conversation
What to take from this episode
01
The reconstruction of Zagreb and Banija began slowly, a reality Mario Uroš attributes to the sheer complexity of the undertaking for the state and the stretched capacity of local contractors. Large-scale recovery efforts, even when urgent, often encounter an initial friction of scale before gaining momentum.
02
The 'green tag' assigned to buildings after the earthquake meant they were safe enough to re-enter, but not necessarily fully restored to pre-earthquake stability. These initial assessments prioritize immediate human safety and avoiding mass displacement over absolute structural integrity.
03
From the outset, the engineering profession insisted that reconstruction, particularly for public buildings, had to be of the highest quality, a standard enshrined in early laws and technical regulations. When public safety is at stake, the quality of restoration must be non-negotiable, even if it prolongs the process.
04
The scope of work involved in repairing severely damaged structures is so extensive that Mario Uroš describes it as 'practically like building a new building.' True structural repair demands the same rigorous project management, oversight, and resources as entirely new construction.
05
The inability to demolish and rebuild many damaged structures in Zagreb's center stemmed from two main constraints: European Solidarity Fund rules, which prioritize repair over new construction, and the city's status as a protected cultural heritage zone. External funding mandates and cultural preservation can force more intricate, and often more costly, repair strategies over simpler demolition.
06
While new buildings aim for 100% of modern seismic safety standards (level four), existing structures undergoing reconstruction are allowed to target 75% (level three) or 50% (level two) due to the immense cost and time of bringing every old building to new-build standards. Full compliance with contemporary codes for historic structures is often impractical, requiring a pragmatic compromise on safety targets to achieve widespread recovery.
Explore further
ScenariosBusiness challengesCardsEducational cardsTimelineTopic evolution