Have we become immune to ugly new construction and faceless facades in Croatian cities?

(Photo: Dejan Tatomir/DI plan)

As contemporary cities continue to expand, many residents have noticed a growing number of buildings that are often described as “matchboxes” due to their simple and repetitive appearance.

The trend has sparked debate over whether creativity in architecture is disappearing and how much freedom architects still have when designing new developments.

According to Croatian engineer Danijela Koren, who is also Executive Director of DI plan, the issue extends far beyond aesthetics.

Modern architecture is increasingly shaped by economic realities, regulatory requirements and investment timelines, with architects balancing urban planning rules, energy efficiency standards, fire safety regulations, parking requirements and investor budgets.

Creativity Under Economic Pressure

Koren argues that creativity has not disappeared from architecture, but the space for it has narrowed considerably.

Architects often find themselves caught between the goal of creating high-quality living environments and investors’ demands to maximise the use of available land while keeping construction costs as low as possible.

As every additional façade detail, design feature or higher-quality material adds to costs, projects frequently become simplified and standardised.

However, Koren notes that simplicity itself is not the problem. Some of the world’s most celebrated buildings are architecturally simple, but they succeed through careful proportions, quality materials, attention to detail and their relationship with surrounding spaces.

Danijela Koren (Photo: Dejan Tatomir/DI plan)

The challenge arises when simplicity becomes cost-cutting without a clear design vision or identity.

Rising costs for labour, materials, land and financing have placed significant pressure on developers.

As a result, elements that are not immediately visible to buyers, such as communal spaces, landscaping, acoustic performance and long-term sustainability, are often among the first areas to face reductions.

Urban Development Without a Wider Vision?

Concerns have also been raised about the way new buildings appear to emerge on narrow plots, often close to roads and neighbouring properties.

Koren says the issue is not the absence of urban planning regulations but rather the way cities increasingly develop through individual projects instead of long-term strategic planning.

Historically, urban planning focused more heavily on the relationship between buildings, green spaces, transport networks and overall quality of life.

(Photo: Dejan Tatomir/DI plan)

Today, market forces and development pressures often dictate the pace of construction. Investors generally build within the limits permitted by planning regulations, while architects work within those constraints to achieve the best possible outcomes.

Problems arise when planning frameworks allow excessive density or when infrastructure fails to keep pace with new development, creating the perception that buildings are appearing without adequate coordination.

The Disappearing Green Spaces

One of the most visible consequences of intensive development is the reduction of green areas. Spaces that were once allocated for parks and community use are increasingly being replaced by parking facilities, access roads and additional building footprints.

Koren believes quality of life is often measured too narrowly through apartment size, parking availability and energy efficiency ratings, while factors such as natural light, views, greenery, spaces for children and integration with the surrounding environment receive less attention.

(Photo: Dejan Tatomir/DI plan)

She argues that creating successful residential environments requires cooperation between architects, developers and public authorities. While challenges remain, growing public discussion around sustainability, public space and quality of life suggests awareness of these issues is increasing.

Why Do New Buildings Age So Quickly?

Another common criticism of modern developments is how quickly some buildings appear worn, with façades showing stains, cracks or signs of deterioration after only a few years.

According to Koren, the problem usually stems from the combination of cost pressures, construction speed and execution quality rather than architectural design itself.

Efforts to reduce costs often affect façade systems and finishing materials, while insufficient quality control during construction can further contribute to premature deterioration.

Older buildings, by contrast, were frequently constructed using more robust natural materials such as stone, solid brick and thicker plaster finishes, which tend to age more gracefully. Modern buildings can still achieve long lifespans, Koren says, but only when design, materials and workmanship meet high standards.

(Photo: Dejan Tatomir/DI plan)

A successful building should remain attractive and functional not only on the day it is completed but also after decades of use.

Lessons from Historic Architecture

Many people compare modern developments unfavourably with historic buildings, including Austro-Hungarian-era architecture and high-quality modernist projects from the mid-20th century.

Koren believes part of this perception is influenced by survivorship bias. The buildings that remain today are often the best examples of their era, while many average or poorly constructed buildings have been demolished or fallen into disrepair.

Nevertheless, she acknowledges that previous generations placed greater emphasis on proportion, detailing and urban composition. Cities were often planned with a longer-term perspective, and developers had a different approach to durability and permanence.

She rejects the notion that today’s architects lack the skills of their predecessors, arguing instead that they operate within a very different economic and regulatory environment.

(Photo: Dejan Tatomir/DI plan)

The Impact on Wellbeing

The debate extends beyond architecture and into public health. Numerous European studies have linked access to green spaces with improved mental wellbeing, lower stress levels and a higher quality of life.

Koren warns that society may not be becoming more tolerant of unattractive environments but rather growing accustomed to lower standards.

Since cities are defined not only by their buildings but also by the experiences of those who live in them, she argues that maintaining high-quality urban environments should remain a priority.

(Photo: Dejan Tatomir/DI plan)

Is There Hope for Change?

Despite the challenges, Koren remains optimistic about the future.

She believes meaningful change will require action at multiple levels. Planning regulations should place greater emphasis on protecting green spaces, preserving views, ensuring adequate distances between buildings and safeguarding the public interest.

Developers should consider the long-term value of projects rather than focusing solely on maximising land use, while architects must continue advocating for quality design solutions. Buyers, meanwhile, should recognise that a good home is defined by more than floor space alone.

(Photo: Dejan Tatomir/DI plan)

“The buildings we construct today will remain part of our cities for decades,” Koren says. “That is why they should be designed not only for sale, but for living.”

As awareness of the difference between simple construction and genuinely high-quality living environments continues to grow, that shift in public expectations may ultimately influence the future shape of cities.