Cela Matan

Construction Methods and Materials in Modernist Croatia During

the 1930s

Cela Matan
Architect and Academic

Abstract

An analysis of ‘representative palaces’ of the Croatian capital Zagreb shows the struggle to adopt state-of-the-art
construction methods and materials, to outgrow habits of the previous century and to become modern in the 1930s,
both on the construction site as well as in architectural form. Most buildings constructed in Zagreb in the most
important decade of the Modern movement in Croatia, even though they might have a modern architectural
expression, were only structurally adjusted to the use of reinforced concrete, and there were few structural
experiments and few patents. The main reason was economic, which can be seen in the choice of construction
techniques and materials in all the buildings analysed. This paper provides an analysis of the history of construction
in Croatia during the 1930s, giving a review of the historical context and identifying the factors that shaped the
development of construction in the transition period to modernity. The construction characteristics of ‘representative
palaces’ appear advanced in comparison with the more ubiquitous residential typology of the time.

Keywords

Croatian Construction history, construction methods, construction materials, Croatian modernism, 1930s

Introduction

This paper reviews the construction characteristics of eleven buildings in the centre of Zagreb, built at
the peak of the Croatian Modern movement in the 1930s. The typology of the chosen buildings is hybrid:
it includes mainly business and public use, but other uses are also included such as residential properties.
The projects involve a complex mix of various uses catering for a large number of users. The chosen
edifices had a relatively high construction budget (partially financed by the City of Zagreb) and a
representative modernist character: the investors wanted buildings in accordance with modern
architectural trends (the construction methods for these buildings was much more advanced than for
example the more common residential typology at the time). All the buildings are branches of public and
private firms and citizens’ associations, and for this reason, they are referred to in this study as
representative palaces. Among the studied buildings not mentioned explicitly in the paper are: the Post
Headquarters (Pošta) at Branimirova ulica 4, (project started in 1939, building finished in 1941); the
Shell Palace with the passage Marićev prolaz at Gajeva ulica 5, (1930-1932), the building housing the
Inspection of the Market (Tržno nadzorništvo), part of the modern complex of Dolac market at Dolac 2,
(1927-30); and the Headquarters of the Cultural Organization for the Help of Croatian Villages
(Gospodarska sloga) at Zvonimirova 17 (1937-1939).

The analysed buildings are important examples of the (still preserved) Modern architecture, mainly built-
in to the city-centre urban block structure. The creators of these buildings are all renowned Croatian
architects of the Modern period. The architects of buildings not mentioned explicitly in this paper are

113
Construction Methods and Materials in Modernist Croatia During the 1930s

Rudolf Lubinsky (1873-1935), Stanko Bučar (unknown), Bogdan Petrović (1897-1962), Egon
Steinmann (1901-1966), Vjekoslav Bastl (1872-1947), Stjepan Gomboš (1895-1975) and Mladen
Kauzlarić (1896-1971).1

The research methodology consisted of the analysis of building permit documentation and plans
available for all buildings in the State Archive Zagreb (DAZ, HR-DAZG-1122 Zbirka građevne
dokumentacije). Other sources were building owner archives (construction site photographs and plans)
like the Croatian Electric Power Industry Archive (owner of the City Companies House); The Worker’s
Chamber Archive (Radnička komora); The Public Labour Exchange Archive (Javna burza rada), House
of Craftsmen Archive (Doma obrtnika) etc. Other building photographs were found in the Museum of
the City of Zagreb and the Museum for Arts and Crafts in Zagreb. A very important part of the research
was the investigation of the buildings in situ. Other analysis sources were professional magazines
(Građevinski vjesnik, Tehnički list) and the daily paper that followed the construction progress (Novosti).

Croatian construction history has not been systematically studied yet: the subject is sometimes
mentioned in the context of other research topics, often in detailed analyses of various typologies of
buildings. Aside from articles in professional magazines of the time, few studies have been done about
the nineteenth century industrial complexes in Rijeka and Zagreb (examining the construction and the
materials). An attempt to open up the subject of the modern construction characteristics in Zagreb
features in A. Laslo’s article where he mentions the first structures built in concrete. The PhD dissertation
by C. Matan supplies the analysis of eleven buildings in downtown Zagreb in 1930s, this paper is based
on this research. Basic structural characteristics of four public buildings built in the 1930s by the Group
KKK, has been given in an article by C. Matan, I. Mrak and N. Palinić. Three summary articles about
construction legislation from 1850-1940s have been written by D. Kahle giving a review of all the laws
concerning building in Zagreb (including taxes, city administration, urban planning, private building
regulation for the northern part of town etc.). The same author made also a large study on residential
architecture of the modern period mentioning the construction characteristics.2

Construction Regulation and Construction Development in Zagreb from mid 19th Century to 1940: a
tentative review
A missing systematic study on Construction laws enacted during the Austro-Hungarian Empire (which
affected Croatia under its rule), left only crumbs of information (even though sometimes very detailed
ones) but difficult to connect. The same applies for the period after the split of the Empire until the end
of 1930s. Based on scarce sources, it has been discovered that during the last 70 years of the Austro-
Hungarian Empire, two Construction regulation laws were brought in (1857 and 1918), and were
periodically refreshed, influencing the construction characteristics in various ways. Due to fire
protection, the building code from 1857 forbids buildings with a timber structure and timber walls; the
advisable building material was stone and brick (45cm of thickness for external walls).

In 1910 the fabrication, implementation and calculation (allowed tensions, safety coefficients etc.) of
reinforced concrete was prescribed. While for the rest of Europe the technology was more advanced than
that of the laws, for various parts of Croatia until the end of WW1, laws were the imperative that brought
change in construction habits and materials (for example the above-mentioned outlawing of timber
structure). Switzerland and the German Empire mentioned reinforced concrete calculations in their
construction laws in 1904; six years earlier than the Austro-Hungarian Empire, while other European
countries like the Netherlands (1912) and Belgium (1923) did it even later. The last law for reinforced
concrete in the Austro-Hungarian Empire was brought in 1917, but little is known about it.3

114
 Cela Matan

After the breakup of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, at the end of the First World War, the major part of
today’s Croatia became integrated into the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, and a few years later
into the Kingdom of Yugoslavia; with a few coastal towns, territories and islands remained under Italian
rule until the end of the Second World War. The big change that occurred in Europe with the breakup of
the Monarchy was reflected in Croatia as well, crossing from a State late in modernization into the even
less developed Kingdom of Yugoslavia.4 These circumstances, followed by difficulties in the creation of
a new State and a new legal system, affected the development of construction. An illustration of the slow
and difficult development of the new State is the use of Austro-Hungarian Empire’s rules for construction
(Građevni pravilnik) in Zagreb until 1925, seven years after the creation of the new State. The
comprehensive new construction law (Građevinski zakon) was passed only in1931, following a delay of
thirteen years.5 During that period, various amendments were brought; the reinforced concrete law form
1917 was replaced in 1924 with the law of the German committee for reinforced concrete (foreign laws
were used temporarily until more suitable were later brought forward).

The Building law from 1931 saw the appointment of a Construction Ministry in charge of standards and
policies for structural materials properties, common all over Europe in the first decades of the 20th
century; and a consequence of various structures collapsing in countries with more possibilities for
experimentation.6 Reinforced concrete floors were prescribed for high buildings in danger of fire or
moisture; also at least one reinforced concrete staircase was obligatory.7 The new German law for
reinforced concrete (considered the most advanced) was temporarily applied in 1932. It allowed the
design and execution of reinforced concrete elements and structures only by authorized engineers; the
revision of rebar plans was demanded for more complex buildings, and any kind of experimentation
required a special permit and proof of quality of the materials and structural stability. In an attempt to
improve the laws, the German Board for Reinforced Concrete opened a debate at the beginning of the
decade in professional magazines (among which Građevinski vjesnik) and later included the remarks of
various European experts based on their experience.8

The Swiss law for reinforced concrete in use from 1935-1936 was a basis for a new one created in 1936,
it finally gave more freedom to engineers in structural design, instead of providing just “a recipe”.9 It
was not until 1940, the Building law prescribed the obligatory calculations for reinforced concrete
structures and the use of thermal insulation for external walls (the values of the thermal coefficient had
to be equal to a brick wall 38cm thick).10

A study of the structural characteristics of industrial and military typologies, which brought progress
until the First World War, would prove to be essential. From research conducted, the most interesting
structures can be found in two important Croatian harbours: Pula and Rijeka. Rijeka was the most
important industrial centre of the nineteenth century. The first application of concrete in Croatia can
probably be found simultaneously in Pula’s military and in Rijeka’s industrial complexes. Concrete
floors were applied in Rijeka’s harbour warehouses in 1881 and the application of concrete floor slabs
and flat roofs (thin panels supported with an iron structure) in 1893.11

The industrial architecture in Zagreb was also intensively shaped at the end of the nineteenth century. A
shift occurred in its structural characteristics during the Modern period. It transformed from a mixed
building structure characteristic of the nineteenth century (with a cast iron structure on the ground floor,
timber pillars and a roof structure on the upper floors, and brick walls),12 into a reinforced concrete frame
structure in combination with brick walls.13

At the end of the nineteenth century, a few interesting building structures should be mentioned in various
other building typologies in Zagreb: the Oktogon passage (built 1898) with a glass cupola and part of the

115
Construction Methods and Materials in Modernist Croatia During the 1930s

roof skylight carried by a metal construction spanning 12.5 m x 17.5 m. Great excitement arose in Zagreb
in 1896 with the delivery of the first prefabricated structure, the Art Pavilion (Umjetničkog paviljona) by
Hungarian architects F. Korb and K. Giergl, originally made for an exhibition in Budapest. This was a
metal structure with a maximum span of 13.5 m.14

The most important construction material of the nineteenth century was brick. Law regulated the
dimensions of the brick loadbearing elements.15 The buildings constructed for decades simply based on
long years of experience could no longer satisfy the demands of the modern era where cheaper materials
and a reduced labour force were required and where there was a need to construct high buildings with
large openings. The production of brick became expensive in comparison with fashionable reinforced
concrete, which was increasingly used in the mid-1930s in many parts of the country.16

The implementation of reinforced concrete in the residential, public and business typology began
tentatively at the beginning of the twentieth century, at first with foundation and basement walls, for
example in the National University Library (Nacionalna i Sveučilišna bibilioteka, today the State
Archives) in 1910 by architect Rudolf Lubinsky.17 The first reinforced concrete frame construction was
built in 1912 by architects Aladar Baranyai and Slavko Benedik in Socher Palace in Preradovićeva ulica,
while the first double cupola in reinforced concrete was built in the Church of Sv. Blaž by architect Viktor
Kovačić built from 1910–1914.18 The more frequent use of reinforced concrete frame structures began
at the end of the 1920s when modern ideas started to spread more intensely. One of the reasons for the
gradual acceptance of the new material was that it was economical and it allowed for fast construction.
At the beginning of the 1930s, the German architect Walter Frese built one of the bigger industrial
complexes in Zagreb, a slaughterhouse with a market (Klaonicu i stočnu tržnicu Grada Zagreba). The
main hall in the complex was supported with a reinforced concrete framework with a span of 113 x 16
m, and reinforced concrete floor plates carrying flat roofs. The hall’s big skylights were carried by an
iron structure.19

The architect A. Albini warned in the professional magazine Građevinski vjesnik in 1932 of the
approximately twenty-year delay in construction development because of the fear of the new. The
situation was vividly demonstrated with examples of important Zagreb architectural competitions,
demanding a “traditional style” and banning the application of flat roofs and experimental materials like
concrete and glass. Many architects complained in professional journals even at the end of the 1930s
about contemporary materials and structures being reserved only for important buildings in big cities.20

Old habits and laws slowed down the industrialization of construction. From 1922 to 1935, thousands of
construction accidents were recorded in Croatia even though weekly supervision was prescribed at the
end of the nineteenth century and sanctions were imposed for not abiding by the law.21 However, even
at the end of the 1930s, out of a hundred controlled sites, on as many as thirty-five percent of them
construction was conducted without scaffolding above the first floor, where the preferred construction
method was “hand building”. The situation was a little better in Zagreb due to frequent inspections and
severe penalties imposed if necessary on management and workers on site.22

At the beginning of the 1930s in professional journals, advertisements for modern concrete mixers were
being published showing the modernization process of construction. The first factory for building
machinery in Croatia opened in the second half of the 1930s in Slavonski Brod called “Prva
jugoslavenska tvronica vagona, strojeva i mostova d.d.”23

In spite of reinforced concrete norms and polices recommendations at the beginning of the 20th century,
until the end of the 1930s in Zagreb structural analysis was rarely done for simple edifices. The engineer

116
 Cela Matan

Đuro Peulić joked about it in his book Konstruktivni elementi zgrada saying: “the rebar was placed
approximately because no one was able to do the calculations”. The stability of buildings was ensured
by experience: repetitive volumes of buildings with similar loads, foundations and wall thickness.24

The construction characteristics of the representative palace

Structure

Figure 1. Photograph of the Workers’ Figure 2. Cross section of the large hall in the Workers’
Chamber (Radničke komora) Chamber building, from the main project, 1935. State
building site, by the architects of the Archive Zagreb.
Group KKK and V. Šterk in the square
called Trg kralja Petra Krešimira
IV/2, 1938. Archive of the Workers’
Chamber. Project development and
building from 1934-1938.

While the use of reinforced concrete is sporadic in most of the widespread residential typology of the
1930s, most representative palaces have a reinforced concrete frame construction, (rarely a combination
of walls and columns like in: House of the Craftsmen and the building housing the Inspection of the
Market). The representative palaces were built within two years and had stability calculations as part of
the main project. Engineer-owned construction companies usually did the calculations. Those were local
firms like: Engineer Josip Čorko (Worker’s Chamber), Brothers Engineers Faltus (Public Labour
Exchange, The Police Headquarters), Engineer Teodor Greiner (Palace of the Association of the Bosnian
Croats), Engineer Franjetić (Post Headquarters), Engineer Mirko Fijember (House of Craftsmen),
certified constructor Liebich Josip (Headquarters of the Cultural Organization for the Help of Croatian
Villages), Engineers Špiller and Šurina (City Companies House), Brothers Marinć and Yugoslav Shell
Company (Shell Palace with Marić passage) and Peyer and Partners Company (the building housing the
Inspection of the Market).25

The buildings are from 7 to 10 storeys high, mainly using modest spans (from 5 m, increasing to 10 m
inside smaller meeting halls).

117
Construction Methods and Materials in Modernist Croatia During the 1930s

Figure 3. Photograph of the City Companies
House (Gradska poduzeća) at Gundulićeva ulica
32, 1939 by the architect Juraj Denzler (1896-
1981). Project development and building from
1932-1935. Postcard. Author’s Archive.
Figure 4. Photograph of the scaffold during the
construction of the City Companies House in
1933. Author’s Archive.

An exception was the Workers’ Chamber (Fig. 1) by the architects of the Group KKK (Jovan Korka,
Đorđe Krekić and Georg Kiverov) with architect Vladimir Šterk, where the frame structure spanned 7.4
m, and was also exploited in the functional solution. Most buildings had several smaller and one main
hall for various purposes, usually looking out onto the courtyard, thus benefiting from natural light. The
loadbearing structure was mainly of reinforced concrete columns, beams and supporting walls with spans
of up to 32 x 14 m. The floor of the halls had a mainly reinforced concrete beam and slab system. The
boldest structure was planned in the Workers’ Chamber auditorium (Fig. 2), with a fan-shaped plan.
Reinforced concrete beams crossing spans of 23 m to 40 m support the roof plate of the auditorium.
Between the main support beams, the plan assumed the use of secondary traverse beams, which formed
a kind of grid-like floor structure, and a planned height of the hall from 8.50 m to 11.50 m. For some
unknown reason, this structure was not built in reinforced concrete; instead, the girders were replaced

Figure 5. Detail of the cross section of the skylight in the main hall Figure 6. Glass brick Luxfer -
of the City Companies House, from the main project in 1932. State Glasbeton pamphlet of
Archive Zagreb (DAZ, HR-DAZG-1122 Zbirka građevne Hungarian production.
dokumentacije). Author’s Archive.

118
 Cela Matan

with eight “L” shaped steel beams. The structure of the elevated gallery was achieved as a reinforced
concrete slope panel (Fig. 2).26

The skylights in halls and passages were resolved as glass brick cupolas, double pitched roofs or as the
popular shed roof system. An interesting detail in the City Companies House (Fig. 3) by the architect
Juraj Denzler in the main hall is the structure of the skylight resolved in the form of a double pitched
roof with a delicate iron structure in the shape of the letter “L”. Its dimensions were 23.5 m x 15.5 m,
and its height 5.5 m; the structure was covered with reinforced glass (Fig. 5). The skylight indirectly lit
the basement (through a Luxfer glass brick area in the floor) as shown in the cross section (Figs 5, 6).
Another skylights glass brick cupola can be found in the entrance hall of the Assicurazioni Genrali
building (Fig. 7).

The glass brick (usually square shaped) was also used for floor areas of the analysed buildings. The brick
was first imported from Hungary until production started in Croatia in the 1930s.27

Figure 7. Glass brick cupola in the entrance hall of the Assicurazioni Generali by the Italian architect
Marcello Piacentini (1881-1960), at Trg Bana Jelačića 3). Photo by author. Project development and
building 1937-1939.

119
Construction Methods and Materials in Modernist Croatia During the 1930s

Figure 8. Photograph of the Police Headquarters (Policijska uprava) at Petrinjska ulica 32, with steel
beams at the attic level, which lean on iron columns on the ground floor, 1995. Museum of the City of
Zagreb (photo archive MGZ, inv. br. 14.395IV413). Project development and building from 1930-1940.

Architects Zvonimir Kavurić (1901-1944) and Franjo Bahovec (1906-1997) provided a structural
solution to an urban regulation problem in the Police Headquarters building, where the condition was
imposed for a building at the angle of two streets to have different heights (Fig. 8). The “L” shaped iron
carriers transferred the load of the pitched roof to the ground floor columns, allowing the architects to

120
 Cela Matan

pull the smaller volume out of the bigger one and satisfy the legal requirement; it also gave the building
a particular character.28

Foundations
The nineteenth-century building volumes of standard brick homes were not a stability concern for local
engineers, since the foundations were constructed using knowledge gained through long years of
experience until the appearance of the reinforced concrete and frame structural system. The new material
brought debate on the new types of foundation necessary for buildings that were more complex and
needed a stability calculation. In the representative palaces, different types of foundations were
combined: strip foundation, foundation pad, and the footing. The trapezoidal strip foundation, considered
by professional journals as the most appropriate for more complex and unusual structures, was used in
most of the analysed buildings.29

Insulation

Figure 9. Photograph of the site of the Figure 10. Cellular gypsum (plaster stone) Sanit plate for
City Companies House; workers are partition walls. B. S. Širola, “Šupljikava sadra”,
installing soffit insulation of Sanit Građevinski vjesnik, Vol. 3, no. 6 (1934), pp. 84-87.
cellular gypsum plates, 1934. B. S.
Širola, “Šupljikava sadra”, Građevinski
vjesnik, Vol. 3, no. 6 (1934), pp. 84-87

Heraklith was the thermal insulation material often used in the buildings under review; it was used also
as plates for partition walls construction. A law passed in 1930 prescribed its use in detail (for example
the thickness of external loadbearing pillars insulation had to be 2, 5 cm, the minimal thickness for 6x4
m dividing walls was 15cm, and for partition walls 7.5 cm etc.).30

121
Construction Methods and Materials in Modernist Croatia During the 1930s

While the engineer A. Tomljenović claimed in the article in professional magazine Građevinski vjesnik
that there were almost no new buildings without some kind of thermal insulation for thin outer walls,
parapets, floors, beams, columns, flat roof structures and terraces.31 There was no thermal insulation for
columns in the examined buildings, and most of the widespread residential typology was constructed at
the time in a far more traditional manner.

The Empire’s law allowed the use of gypsum plates for partition walls in 1892. Forty years later a
frequently used material of local production also for acoustic and thermal insulation (both characteristics
usually emphasised for most new materials) were cellular gypsum plates called Sanit, applied in the City
Companies House as soffit insulation (Figs 9, 10). Cellular gypsum consisted only of fireproof mineral
particles and was therefore resistant to high temperatures.32

Engineer D. I. explained the advantages of less known gypsum screed as thermal and acoustic insulations
for reinforced concrete floors in professional magazine Građevinski vjesnik. The ideal floor, according
to the engineer would be a layer of sand (2 cm) above the reinforced concrete floor, on which a layer of
gypsum screed (3 cm) and linoleum or gum should be placed.33

In an article published in 1912, Adolf Loos jokes that a solution to the acoustics problem in auditoriums
is the forgotten knowledge of the Classical period: the performance of high-quality music, which
becomes absorbed at a molecular level in materials, a phenomenon known only in violins. Loos
considered that construction materials could not support wind instruments and that they could ruin the
acoustics of any auditorium. Le Corbusier wrote in 1926 that the acoustic problem in modern
auditoriums was that related to the floors (none existed in the Classical period), new materials and the
shape of the auditoriums.34

Architects from the Group KKK with Vladimir Šterk solved the acoustics of the auditorium in the
Workers’ Chamber with its fan-shaped plan, and curving the floor in a longitudinal direction (Fig. 2). The
architect Korka explained in a professional magazine: ‘… the formation of the floor is a very important
factor for the right acoustics of the auditorium, to achieve uniform space acoustics and prevent echo...’
In the original design of the building, the beam and slab floor created ‘shells’ in the soffit, which ensured
the spread of the sound and blocked echo. The finally executed structural solution with steel beams had
a similar soffit solution related to acoustics. The acoustic isolation of the walls was made from
compressed fibre. The auditorium’s walls bordering with public spaces were realized as double brick
walls 2 x 12 cm, with an air stratum 55 cm thick.35 This air stratum insulation was praised in the
professional magazine Građevinski vjesnik as good and cheap insulation that does not transmit
vibration.36

Floors
Instead of structural floors of timber or iron widely used in the nineteenth century, the widespread use of
reinforced concrete introduced monolithic reinforced concrete beam and slab floors or half-prefabricated
ones: reinforced concrete beams with cellular brick fillings. The reinforced concrete beams were
constructed on site with lost formwork: wooden (Fig. 11) or ceramic ‘pot’ elements.

The first modern floor systems appeared in Zagreb at the beginning of the twentieth century. Laws
allowed the use of the half-prefabricated Siegwart floors system in 1905. First on a span of 3.6 m, and
later on a span of 5.8 m.37 It is assumed this was the patent by the Swiss Hans Siegwart from 1901 with
prefabricated perforated filling elements meant to improve the heating/cooling of the building. The floors
were carried by concrete and iron beams executed on site. It is not known how much the advanced floor

122
 Cela Matan

Figure 11. The axonometric projection of a floor system probably similar to a patent called Krajčinović
or P.K. P. Krajčinović, “Sandučasti strop”, Građevinski vjesnik, Vol.2, no.11, 1933, pp. 167-171.

system was applied at the time.38 A more advanced version of this floor system was implemented at the
end of the 1930s in the great hall of the Public Labour Exchange building.

The temporarily adopted German law in 1932 brought detailed instructions for the execution of
monolithic reinforced concrete beam and slab floors as well as for the composition of concrete for tall
buildings. Pursuant to this law, the floors had to have beams of a maximum span of 70 cm and pot
elements placed between them for a straight soffit. The thickness of the plate had to be 1/10 of the span
of the beams, but not less than 5 cm, while the thickness of the beams could not be less than 5 cm.
Transversal floor beams were considered unnecessary if the floor contained pot elements.39

In the second half of the 1930s, in the studied buildings, the maximum span between beams was 50 cm
for monolithic floors with pot elements, and 135cm for floors without pot elements. Monolithic
reinforced concrete beam and slab floors and half-prefabricated floors were commonly used, but there
were no fully prefabricated floors.

The architect Juraj Denzler tried to make gasbeton fillings on the City Companies House site (Fig. 12),
but it did not work, so he implemented prefabricated gasbeton fillings, popularly called “cellular rocks”,
carried by reinforced concrete beams executed on site (Fig. 13). He also used gasbeton panels (2 cm
thick) as insulation for reinforced concrete parapet walls 10 cm thick.40

Little is known now of the Croatian floor patents of the era, and mention is made of only a few, such as
the monolithic beam and slab floor called Krajčinović or P.K. (probably Petar Krajčinović’s patent or his
improvement of an existing one) with a lost boxlike formwork (Fig. 11). Architect Korka mentions the
use of this floor system called P.K. in the Public Labour Exchange building.41

123
Construction Methods and Materials in Modernist Croatia During the 1930s

Figure 12. Floor detail of Juraj Denzler’s execution plan
for the City Companies House, 1932. Archive of the
Faculty of Architecture Zagreb.
Figure 13. Photograph of the site of the
City Companies House execution of
floors in prefabricated elements in
gasbeton, 1933. Croatian electric power
industry Archive, Elektra Zagreb firm.

Figure 14. Pamphlet of the floor patent Ethos advertised as a patent protected by law: “floor system with
reinforced concrete prefabricated beams and filling in gasbeton for inexperienced hands”. State Archive
Zagreb (DAZ, HR-DAZG-1122 Zbirka građevne dokumentacije).

A half-prefabricated floor patent called Ethos (with the execution of beams and gasbeton infill on site)
was used in the City Companies House (Figs 12, 13). The pamphlet of the floor (Fig. 14) suggests that
it probably belonged to Josip Randeli from Karlovac, where there was a production of the system. The
most common monolithic and half-prefabricated floor systems in the studied buildings were Ast Mollin,
Herbst, Isteg, and Krajčinović (or P.K.).42

124
 Cela Matan

Figure 15. The Association of the Figure 16. The ceiling of The Association of the Bosnian
Bosnian Croats (Napretkova Croats building, one floor under adaptation in 2008. Traces of
zadruga), 1935-1937 at reed and metal hooks can be seen (remains of the Rabitz
Bogovićeva 1 Street by the system). Photo by author.
architect Stjepan Palnić (1900-
1980). Photo: unknown author,
Archive of the architect Stjepan
Planić, Institute of Art History,
Zagreb.

Figure 17. A technical drawing of the floor system like the one used in the Association of the Bosnian
Croats building (previous photo). The metal hooks were used to hold the lost formwork. Peulić, (Note
17), pp. 379.

The ceilings were usually solved with the Rabitz system, thermal and acoustic insulation was put inside
the floor or soffit layers. In the City Companies House, the beam and slab floors were isolated in the
soffit layer with cellular gypsum elements fixed with the Rabitz system (Fig. 9).43

In the Association of the Bosnian Croats building, the monolithic beam and slab floor was probabily built
with lost formwork fixed with the Rabitz system (Figs 16, 17).

125
Construction Methods and Materials in Modernist Croatia During the 1930s

Figure 18. Part of the section of The Association of the Bosnian Figure 19. Advertisement for
Croats building with the flat roof layers. State Archive Zagreb liquid bitumen of local
(DAZ, HR-DAZG-1122 Zbirka građevne dokumentacije). production, ‘cold and liquid roof
material for covering and
insulation’, produced in Zagreb.
Advertisement: Građevinski
vjesnik, Vol.2, no.11, 1933, p. 164.

Roofs

Flat roofs began to be used in Zagreb at the end of the nineteenth century, since law allowed the use of
roofing paper in 1892.44 High cornices on neoclassical buildings hid flat roofs of the era. The typical roof
type in the studied decade was a pitched roof on the street side and a flat roof on the courtyard side for
most of the residential typology.

Flat roofs were mainly used in the typology under review. The terraces on flat roofs, for example in the
House of Craftsmen by the architects A. Freudenreich and Z. Požgaj (at Ilica 49) and the Palace of the
Association of the Bosnian Croats were finished with asphalt. For the latter, the asphalt was laid on the
following layers: concrete, sand, bitumen, Heraklith, cement screed, beam and slab floor (Figs 18, 19).
Flat impassable roofs were sometimes finished with roofing paper. The construction of a thin enclosure
wall on the terraces without insulation was criticized in professional magazines because of its tendency
to freeze and later to stain the façade.45

The many layers of insulation necessary for popular flat roof terraces represented a challenge for the
architects of the time given the demand to achieve a terrace level equal to the interior floor level. The
architects from the Group KKK together with the architect V. Šterk solved this detail in the Public
Labour Exchange (Fig. 20) by lowering the floor structure, with an inclination and water drain on the
terrace surface. In the construction of villas in Zagreb, an interesting patent for flat roof insulation was
in use at the end of the decade. It was advertised in professional magazines as a solution to this problem,
because the insulation was placed between the floor beams without increasing its thickness. The system,
composed of aluminium sheets, was called Alfol, and the sheets were supposed to reflect the hot and cold
rays from the roof surface, and, together with layers of air, made a “light and good isolation system”.46

126
 Cela Matan

Figure 20. Photograph of the building site of the Public Labour Exchange (Javna burza rada),
Zvonimirova ulica 17, by the architects from the Group KKK and Vladimir Šterk. Museum of the City of
Zagreb (photo archive MGZ, inv. br. 1811-III-590CD-206).

Windows
Large window surfaces were considered a given in modern structural solutions, since the horizontal
aspect of the window was more natural for human perception, and better in exploiting the sunlight. Huge
glass areas were made possible by central heating in winter and an air conditioning system in summer.47
Even though the horizontal window solution was a common motif in the façade solution of the studied
buildings, and central heating was normally used (cooling was applied only for large halls), the sizes of
the windows remained small except for shop windows on the ground floor. Doors and windows were
made of oak and iron. In the City Companies House, a Nikolaus wooden window system with four types
of opening is still in use.48

Materials
Various materials can be found in floor finishing in the analysed buildings: oak parquet, terrazzo, gum,
cement floors (locally produced Dursilit applied in the Public Labour Exchange and the City Companies
building), linoleum, and, in the House of the Craftsmen, a traditional earth floor in the basement was
formed for the purpose of food preservation. Frequently used linoleum floors, considered as good
thermal (even though less than wooden floors) and acoustic isolators, were produced from a mix of
ground cork and oxidized linen oil, all heated with a resin additive. It was considered a hard floor;
crushed cork was added for softer floors needed for example in gyms. The use of gum floors was
increasing at the time, and considered as good isolators. The base for this floor was a cement layer and
a gypsum screed or asphalt paste if there was a problem with moisture. Linoleum and gum floors were
produced locally.49

127
Construction Methods and Materials in Modernist Croatia During the 1930s

Figure 21. A dry façade mortar advertisement “for contemporary architecture”, produced in Samobor,
near Zagreb. Advertisement: Građevinski vjesnik, 1933, no. 4, p. 57.

Asbestos cement was produced in Croatia after the First World War and was used for roof covering
elements, façade panels, and various types of pipes (water, ventilation, sewerage). Local products were
called Eternit, Asbestosil, Mollet, Coverit, etc. The material was particularly appreciated for its resistance
to high temperatures, and was in common use. In fact, one of the fire protection conditions for the
Workers’ Chamber permit in 1935 was the application of asbestos tubes for chimneys.50

Until the beginning of industrial production, the quality of local mortar fell behind imported mortar
because of poor control of materials on site and a lack of norms prescribing the composition and
characteristics of materials. In the mid-1930s, at the time of increased construction activity, the industrial
production of dry mortar began. Previously imported dry mix renders (Terranova, Terrasecuri) were
replaced with local products named Terrabona (Fig. 21), Kremen, and, for interiors a dry gypsum plaster

128
 Cela Matan

Sanit.51 The colours of the plaster were obtained by adding natural stone dust. The application of dry
gypsum plaster was recommended in professional magazines for the better interior thermal insulation of
buildings with a reinforced concrete frame structure, where the recommended thickness of the layer was
2 cm. The engineer Sokolović claimed (without giving the calculation) in professional magazine
Građevinski vjesnik that 2 cm of gypsum plaster had the same thermal properties of 22 cm brick wall
(thermal coefficient for gypsum was 0,125 and for brick 0,75). The quality of this plaster was also
praised for its aesthetic and hygienic qualities, as it was possible to wash under certain circumstances.52

The façades of the analysed buildings were usually finished with plaster, sometimes with facing brick
and local stone. Two exceptions to the rule were the façade of the Police Headquarters finished in modern
fibre cement panels in 1938 of local production called Salonit, and the House of Craftsmen covered with
terracotta panels.53

The interiors of public spaces in the studied buildings were sometimes finished with travertine stone,
marble, and decorated with reliefs and murals often drawn by the architects themselves.

Conclusion

The analysis of the construction characteristics of the representative palaces in Croatia’s capital
uncovers the peak of the modern period as a time of adjustment of architectural trends to include local
knowledge and potential. In spite of the delay in the development of construction technology, a wish to
catch up with contemporary trends in the application of construction solutions can be observed.

A significant element in the analysis of Croatian architecture and construction is “transition” (defined in
the book Project Zagreb: Transition as a Condition, Strategy, Practice as an “unpredictable state with
an uncertain outcome”).54 Consequently, the dominant element of construction development was
improvisation in collecting information and in implementing it. Besides the particularities of the Austro-
Hungarian Empire in which Croatia had fought for its place for centuries, after the First World War,
Croatia stepped into a union which struggled to coalesce and catch up with modern times.

After becoming part of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, Croatia used the Imperial laws for
a whole decade before the new State’s laws were proclaimed. The need to follow trends in construction
can be seen in the continuous application of foreign laws in the 1930s.

The significant use of concrete in Zagreb occurred from 1908-1913 when a reinforced concrete double
cupola with a span of 18 m was built, or the first reinforced concrete frame structure in 1914.

After the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, an even greater delay can be noticed because of
the “backward mentality”, as the architects complained. Reinforced concrete was used more often only
at the end of the 1920s when modern architectural concepts were largely embraced by Croatian
architects. This fact is not surprising given the economic and even regulatory limitations when it came
to experimentation. At the beginning of the century, there were many examples of reinforced concrete
structural experiments going wrong in various European countries.55 The lack of room for mistakes can
be seen in the “last minute” change of structural material for the auditorium in the Workers’ Chamber,
from reinforced concrete to steel, whereas a similar construction on even bigger spans had been built a
few years earlier in Rome by the architect Marcello Piacentini.56

In fact, only since 1935 and the temporary adoption of a Swiss law were engineers given a little more

129
Construction Methods and Materials in Modernist Croatia During the 1930s

space to experiment instead of using the law “as a recipe”. The use of materials such as reinforced
concrete and glass in the traditional Zagreb environment, even at the end of the 1930s, was considered
experimental and was reserved only for important buildings in larger cities.57 When it comes to following
the development of construction in neighbouring countries, engineers communicated with their fellow
colleagues through professional magazines (Građevinski vjesnik and Tehnički list), young engineers
studied abroad, etc.

The change that reinforced concrete brought was reflected in building habits: new types of foundations
were developed, stability calculations became essential for more complex buildings, and new insulation
materials and patent solutions were also applied. The materials and products were first imported from
Hungary and Czechoslovakia, but later industrial production developed in the country.

The development of floor systems was also lagging behind. Most of them were monolithic reinforced
concrete beam and slab type, and there were also semi-prefabricated (cellular brick, gasbeton fillings)
floors, with beams produced on site. The lack of prefabricated elements, even in representative palaces,
in spite of the existence of local ceiling patents, shows the extent of the economic restrictions on
construction development. In the analysed representative palaces, the use of locally produced materials
(artificial stone for partial façade finishing) was encouraged since the buildings were partly financed by
the City of Zagreb. Little is known so far about the Croatian ceiling patents of the time. However, it is
assumed that there were a few more than those mentioned in this paper.

Most buildings constructed in Zagreb in the most important decade of the Modern movement, even
though they have a modern architectural expression, were structurally adjusted to the use of reinforced
concrete only with modest spans, and there were few structural experiments, mainly because of the
economic obstacles, which can be seen in the choice of construction techniques and materials. This is the
opposite of what happened, for example, in Italy, where the building structure was more advanced than
the architectural expression due to their own historical context.58

This research of the most important decade for the Modern movement in Croatia, and the study of one
particular typology, may be considered as the start of the important subject of construction history in
Croatia. The chosen representative palaces typology appears advanced in comparison to the most
frequently built residential typology. In spite of the delay in construction development in Zagreb, it still
boasted significant modern architecture with brilliant solutions relying on a small budget, an unqualified
labour force, and old habits.

The Author

After obtaining a Masters in Architecture and Urban Planning at the Faculty of Architecture, University
of Zagreb, Croatia in 2000, Cela Matan then undertook the Post graduate course in History of
Architecture (Master Europeo in Storia dell’Architettura), Faculty of Architecture on Roma III
University in Rome, Italy. Part of the course was a six weeks training program at DO.CO.MO.MO. Italy.
Matan completed her doctoral study in History of Architecture in 2010 (research project: “Representative
Palace in Zagreb in the 1930ies”) at the University of Roma Tor Vergata, Department of Civil
Engineering in Rome, Italy. Matan has pursued a professional career in architecture from 2000 until
2016, when she began her academic career as postdoctoral researcher and assistant professor at the
University of Rijeka, Faculty of Civil Engineering in Croatia. Her research was focused on modern
Croatian architecture in 1930s. From 2020, Matan has returned to her professional career as an architect.

130
 Cela Matan

Contact Details

matan.cela@gmail.com

References

1. For more about all the authors of the studied buildings see: D. Radović Mahečić, Modern
Architecture in Croatia: 1930s, Zagreb: Institut za povijest umjetnosti: Školska knjiga, 2007; C.
Matan, I. Mrak, N. Palinić, ‘The Buildings Built for Public Use by “the KKK Group” in Croatia:
Architecture, Structure and Conservation’, Architektura & Urbanizmus, vol. LII (2018), no. 1-2,
pp. 84-97, A. Uchytil, Z. Barišić Marenić, E. Kahrović, Leksikon arhitekata atlasa hrvatske
arhitekture xx. stoljeća (Architects lexicon of the atlas of Croatian architecture of the 20th century),
Zagreb: Arhitektonski fakultet Zagreb, 2009; N. Jakšić, ‘Arhitektonski opus Jurja Denzlera
tridesetih godina dvadesetog stoljeća’ (The architecture opus of Juraj Denzeler in 1930s), (Ph.D.
Thesis, University of Zagreb, 2007), T. Premerl, Hrvatska moderna arhitektura između dva rata/
nova tradicija (Croatian modern architecture/ the new tradition), Zagreb: Nakladni zavod Matice
hrvatske, 1990.
2. A. Laslo, ‘Snaga urbanog prostora’ (The power of the urban space), werk, bauen + wohnen, vol. 1
(2001), no. 9, pp. 66-69; C. Matan, ‘Architecture, Structure and Conservation, Representative
Palace in Zagreb of the 1930s’ (Ph.D. Thesis, University Tor Vergata, 2010); C. Matan, I. Mrak,
N. Palinić, (Note 1), pp. 150-157; D. Kahle, ‘Građevinski propisi grada Zagreba u razdoblju od
1850. do 1918. Godine’ (Building laws for the City of Zagreb in the period from 1850. to 1918.),
Prostor (Space), vol.12, no. 2(28), pp. 203-214, 2004; D. Kahle, ‘Građevinski propisi za grad
Zagreb u razdoblju od 1919. do 1931. godine i Građevinski zakon iz 1931. Godine’ (Building laws
for the City of Zagreb in the period from 1919. to 1931. In addition, the Building law from 1931.),
Prostor (Space), vol.14, no. 1(31), pp. 117-128, 2006; D. Kahle, ‘Građevinski propisi za grad
Zagreb u razdoblju od 1932. do 1945. Godine’ (Building code for Zagreb between 1932-1945),
Prostor, vol.14 (2006), no. 2(32), pp. 219-227.
3. D. Kahle, (Note 2), pp. 203-214; D. Kahle, (Note 2), pp. 117-128; D. Kahle, (Note 2), pp. 219-227;
S. V. de Voorde, S. Kuban, D. Yeomans, ‘Early Regulations and Guidelines on Reinforced Concrete
in Europe (1900-1950). Towards an International Comparison in J. Campbell, N. Baker, M. Driver,
M Heaton, Y. Pan, T. Rosoman, D. Yeomans, (Eds.) Building Histories. The Proceedings of the
Fourth Conference of the Construction History Society, Construction History Society, Cambridge
p. 345-356, 2017.
4. C. Matan, I. Mrak, N. Palinić, (Note 1), pp. 150-157.
5. D. Kahle, (Note 2), pp. 219-227.
6. S. V. de Voorde, S. Kuban, D. Yeomans, (Note 3), p. 345-356.
7. Kahle (Note 2), p. 119.
8. B. S. Širola, ‘Novi njemački propisi za armirani beton, Propisi njemačkog odbora za armirani beton
iz godine 1932’, (New German code for reinforced concrete, Laws of the German board for
reinforced concrete 1932), Građevinski vjesnik (Construction herald), vol. 2, no. 6 (1933), pp. 92-
94.
9. Širola (Note 8), pp. 92-94
10. Kahle (Note 2), p. 224.
11. The floors were isolated with wood-concrete. The execution of reinforced concrete floors was
supervisioned by the Hungarian firm Breymann Gusztav & Co. licensed for the application of
Monier’s patents. N. Palinić, ‘Ab konstrukcije u riječkoj luci’ (Reinforced concrete constructions
in Rijeka’s harbor), Građevinar (Civil Engineer), vol. 61(2006) no.5, pp. 435-444.

131
Construction Methods and Materials in Modernist Croatia During the 1930s

12. LJ. Šepić, ‘Industrijsko nasljeđe u Hrvatskoj u kontekstu svjetskog industrijskog nasljeđa’
(Industrial heritage in Croatia in the context of the world industrial heritage) in M. Gorščić (Ed.)
Grad za 21. Stoljeće (City for the 21. Century), zbornik radova, Zagreb: Biblioteka Psefizma, 2001,
p. 30.
13. Ibid.
14. A. Laslo, (Note 4), pp. 66-69; M. Perušić, ‘Building and Renovations of the Art Pavilion in
Zagreb’, Portal, no. 6 (2015), pp. 2183-206.
15. The load bearing brick walls of the last floor had to be 45 cm thick and 15 cm thicker in every lower
floor. Kahle (Note 2), vol. 14, pp. 219-227.
16. Paradoxically the cheapest brick production was the most primitive one. C. Matan (Note 2).
17. Đ. Peulić, Konstruktivni elementi zgrada, prvi dio (Building construction elements, first part),
Zagreb: Tehnička knjiga, 1991, pp. 370-371.
18. Viktor Kovačić is considered to be the father of Croatian modern architecture. For more about him,
see: K. Galović, Viktor Kovačić: otac moderne arhitekture (Viktor Kovačić: father of modern
architecture), Zagreb: EPH Media, 2015. Engineer Milan Čalogović who had previous experience
on warehouse concrete structures in Rijeka’s harbor did the calculations for the reinforced concrete
double cupola. The contactor was the firm ‘Josip Dupsky i drug’. Information kindly given to me
by Prof. Zlatko Jurić who is working on a book about the church. N. Palinić, ‘Rane
armiranobetonske konstrukcije u riječkoj luci’ (Early reinforced concrete structures in Rijeka’s
harbor), Građevinar (Civil Engineer), vol. 61, no.5, 2009 p. 437.
19. The flat roofs were isolated with slag concrete, cement glaze and layers of building paper, finishing
with gravel. W. Frese, ‘Klaonica i stočna tržnica Grada Zagreba’ (Slaughterhouse and cattle market
of the City of Zagreb), Građevinski vjesnik (Construction herald), vol. 1(1932), no. 4. pp. 53-57.
The construction was managed by Josip Gaupp on behalf of the Municipal Construction office (in
charge of all the important City’s projects; they adapted the project done by Frese in 1921). The
complex was built from 1928-1931. Architect Ivan Zemljak supervised the project and Peter
Behrens did the consulting supervision (at the time in Zagreb for another project). A. Laslo,
Arhitektonski vodič: Zagreb: 1898.-2010. / [Aleksandar Laslo] (Architectural guide: Zagreb…),
Arhitekst: Društvo Arhitekata Zagreb, Zagreb, 2011. p.53; G. Arčabić,’Zagrebačka industrijska
baština u Registru kulturnih dobara Republike Hrvatske: pregled, stanje, potencijali’ (Zagreb
industrial heritage in the Registry of culutral heritage of Republic of Croatia), Informatica
museologica, vol.38, no. 1-2, 2007, pp. 22-29. The calculations were probably firstly done by
Frese’s office and later by the Municipal Construction office. For more about the complex see: Z.
Barišić Marenić, ‘Gradska klaonica i stočna tržnica u Zagrebu arhitekta Waltera Fresea’, Prostor,
vol.23, no. 2 (50), pp. 370-383, 2015.
20. Laslo (Note 7), vol. 1, pp. 66-69; A. Moravanszky, The Search for a National Style/ Competing
Visions, Cambridge: MIT Press, Mass. & London, 1998, p. 43; E. Weissmann, ‘Savremena
građevinska tehnika – nova arhitektura’ (Contemporary building techniques- new architecture),
Tehnički list (Technical gazette), no. 11 – 12 (1939), pp.  133–134; A. Albini, ‘Prije dvadeset
godina’ (Twenty years ago), Građevinski vjesnik (Construction herald), 1(3), 1932, pp. 23–23.
21. Kahle (Note 2), vol. 14, pp. 219-227.
22. ‘Nesreće kod građenja/ Opterećuju našu privredu s desetcima milijuna’ (Accidents in construction/
Burden our economy with tens millions), Novosti (News), (17.08.1938), p. 9.
23. S.B. ‘Domaća industrija građevinskih strojeva’ (Building machinery home industry), Građevinski
vjesnik (Construction herald), vol. 6, no. 8, 1937, pp. 119–129.
24. Matan, thesis (Note 2); Peulić, (Note 17), pp. 370-371.
25. State Archive Zagreb (DAZ, HR-DAZG-1122 Zbirka građevne dokumentacije).
26. Matan, Mrak, Palinić, (Note 1), pp. 150–157; State Archive Zagreb (DAZ, HR-DAZG-1122 Zbirka
građevne dokumentacije).

132
 Cela Matan

27. Matan, thesis (Note 2). The skylight structure was influenced by Otto Wagner’s Austrian Postal
Savings Bank (1904-1906).
28. Matan, thesis (Note 2).
29. R. Dworžak, ‘Temeljenje visokih zgrada’, (Tall buildings foundations), Građevinski vjesnik
(Construction herald), no. 4 (1932), pp. 57–82; Matan, thesis (Note 2).
30. Forbidden for fire protection walls. Kahle (Note 2), vol. 14, pp. 219–227.
31. A. Tomljenović, ‘Savremena toplinska izolacija’ (Contemporary thermal insulation), Građevinski
vjesnik (Construction herald), vol. 7, no. 10 (1938), pp.155-157.
32. B. S. Širola, ‘Šupljikava sadra’ (Cavernous gypsum), Građevinski vjesnik (Construction herald),
vol. 3, no. 6 (1934), pp. 84–87; Kahle (Note 2), vol. 14, pp. 219-227. All the products from Sanit
factory carried the same name, among which: cellular gypsum plates for floor insulation, gypsum
plaster, cellular gypsum plates for partition walls etc.
33. D.I., ‘Podovi od estrih- sadre (Gypsum screed floors), Građevinski vjesnik (Construction herald),
vol. 2, no.7 (1933), p. 109.
34. D. Gabrijan, ‘Problem akustike u modernoj arhitekturi’ (The problems of acoustics in modern
architecture), Tehnički list (Technical gazette), vol. 17, no18 (1939), pp. 219–223.
35. Matan, thesis (Note 2).
36. E. Herzmanksy, ‘Zaštita stambenih i radnih prostorija od buke i trešnje’, (Protection of working and
living spaces from noise and shaking), Građevinski vjesnik, (Construction herald), vol. 8, no. 7
(1939), pp. 97–103; Matan, thesis (Note 2).
37. Kahle (Note 2), vol. 14, pp. 219–227.
38. https://patents.google.com/patent/US684116A/en?inventor=hans+siegwart&assignee=Hans+
Siegwart (accessed on 21.12.2018).
39. Širola (Note 8) vol. 2, pp. 92–94.
40. State Archive Zagreb (DAZ, HR-DAZG-1122 Zbirka građevne dokumentacije).
41. D. Kahle, ‘Potpisani projekti i realizacije Vladimira Šterka u Zagrebu od 1923. do 1941.’ (Signed
projects and realizations of Vladimir Šterk in Zagreb from 1923 to 19419), Prostor (Space) vol. 16,
no. 2(36), 2008, pp. 192–209; J. Korka, ‘Nova palača Javne burze rada/ Rad ustanova koje su
smještene u zgradi’ (The new Palace of Public Labour Exchange/ The work of the institutions
placed in the building), Građevinski vjesnik (Construction herald), no. 5(2), 1936, pp. 132–135.
42. In the bill of quantities (part of the building documentation), it was stated in various cases that the
floors should be constructed as ‘one of the usual’ mentioning those floor systems. State Archive
Zagreb (DAZ, HR-DAZG-1122 Zbirka građevne dokumentacije).
43. State Archive Zagreb (DAZ, HR-DAZG-1122 Zbirka građevne dokumentacije); Širola (Note 8),
vol. 2, pp. 92–94; N. K.Van Balen, E. Verstrynge (Ed.) Structural Analysis of Historical
Constructions/ Anamnesis, diagnosis, therapy, controls, Leiden, Belgium: CRC Press Taylor&
Francis Group, 2016, p. 936.
44. D. Kahle, ‘Zagrebačka ugradbena najamna kuća u razdoblju od 1935. do 1945. Godine (Built-in
houses in Zagreb in the period from 1935-1945.), Prostor (Space), vol. 1, no. 25 (2003), pp. 33–43;
Kahle (Note 2), vol. 14, pp. 219–227.
45. State Archive Zagreb (DAZ, HR-DAZG-1122 Zbirka građevne dokumentacije); Z.J. ‘Kosi ili ravni
krov’ (Flat or piched roof), Građevinski vjesnik (Construction herald), god. 3, 1934, pp. 155–156.
46. This type of floor was applied in the Police school in Nova Ves, Zagreb. A. Tomljenović, (Note 27)
pp. 155–157.
47. E.A. Griffini, Costruzione razionale della casa, I nuovi materiali, (House construction, The new
materials), Milano: Ulrico Hoepli, 1932.
48. Matan, thesis (Note 2).
49. E. Deutsch, ‘Suvremeni podovi’ (Contemporary floors), Građevinski vjesnik (Construction herald),
vol. 3, no. 2, 1934, pp. 28–29.

133
Construction Methods and Materials in Modernist Croatia During the 1930s

50. State Archive Zagreb (DAZ, HR-DAZG-1122 Zbirka građevne dokumentacije); V. M. Anžlovar,
‘Cijevi od azbestcementnog materijala’ (Asbestos cement pipes), Građevinski vjesnik
(Construction herald), nos. 3-4, 1934, pp. 61-62.
51. A. Sokolović, ‘Suhe ili ukrasne žbuke’, (Dray or decorative mortars), Građevinski vjesnik
(Construction herald), vol. 1, no. 4, 1932, pp. 80–82
52. A. Sokolović, (Note 45), pp. 80–82.
53. Matan, thesis (Note 2); A. Sokolović, (Note 45), pp. 80–82; Tomljenović, (Note 27), pp. 155–157.
54. E. Blau, I. Rupnik, Project Zagreb/ Transition as Condition, Strategy, Practice, Barcelona, New
York: Actar 2007, p. 9.
55. T. Iori, Il cemento armato in Italia (Reinforced concrete in Italy), Roma: Edilstampa, 2001; S. V.
de Voorde, S. Kuban, D. Yeomans, (Note 3), p. 345-356.
56. S. Poretti, Modernismi italiani/ architettura e costruzione del Novecento, (Italian modernism/
architecture and construction of the twentieth century), Rome: Gangemi editore 2008, pp. 155-156.
57. Weissmann, (Note 13), pp. 133–134.
58. Iori, (Note 45).

134