Nakon neuspjeloga pokušaja zagrebačkoga gradskog načelnika Adolfa Mošinskog i vijećnika Adolfa Hudovskog da se donese građevni red 1894., godine 1908. i 1909. traje rasprava o tri varijante (smjera) realizacije novoga prijedloga građevnoga reda grada Zagreba, koje su razrađene i analizirane u ovome članku. Prva je varijanta Vladoja Eisenbarta, koji je nastavio i razradio ideju građevnoga reda kao jednoga od osnovnih instrumenata u reguliranju gradova. Eisenbartov tekst iz 1908. preradio je kolektiv autora brojnim primjedbama nakon dugotrajne rasprave u konačni prijedlog iz 1909. godine. Drugu varijantu zagovarali su inženjeri Antun Kostial st., Mirko pl. Ferrich, Kamilo Bedeković i odbor Hrvatskoga društva inžinira i arhitekta, koji su Eisenbartov prijedlog iz 1908. promatrali na dvije razine. Oni su odbacili ideju i svrhu građevnoga reda kao isključivo regulatornoga dokumenta i pretvorili ga u razvojni gospodarski dokument. Odbor se neočekivano preobrazio u žestokoga zagovornika privatnoga vlasništva i poduzetništva. Treću varijantu zastupao je gradski načelnik dr. Milan Amruš, koji je forsirao osnivanje građevnoga odbora i bitno smanjivanje ovlasti i važnosti Gradskoga poglavarstva i zastupstva. Glavni problem u prijedlogu bilo je uvođenje građevnoga odbora kao posebne građevne oblasti koja bi s predloženim ovlastima suspendirala građevnu oblast prve molbe (Gradsko poglavarstvo) i kontrolno djelovanje Gradskoga zastupstva. Bez obzira na postojeće stranačke podjele i osobne animozitete zastupnika, prijedlog osnove građevnoga reda iz 1909. nije imao nikakve izglede prilikom glasanja u Gradskom zastupstvu.; After the unsuccessful attempt of Zagreb mayor Adolf Mošinski and councillor Adolf Hudovski to secure approval for the Master Plan of 1894, a discussion on three variants (directions) of realising a new master plan of Zagreb took place in 1908 and 1909. This paper elaborates and analyses these three proposals of realising the Zagreb master plan. The first is the variant of Vladoje Eisenbart, who continued and elaborated the idea of the Master Plan as one of the basic instruments in urban regulation. Eisenbart’s text from 1908 was revised by a collective of authors and was, following numerous objections and long discussions, formed into a final proposal in 1909. The second variant was advocated by Antun Kostial, Sr, Mirko Ferrich, Kamilo Bedeković, and a committee of the Croatian Society of Engineers and Architects, who viewed Eisenbart’s 1908 proposal on two levels. They rejected the idea and purpose of the master plan as an exclusively regulatory document, and transformed it into a development and economic document. The committee unexpectedly changed into a fierce advocate of private ownership and entrepreneurship. The third variant was advocated by the mayor, Dr Milan Amruš, who forced the founding of a construction committee and substantial limitation of the powers and importance of the city government and council. The main problem in this proposal was the introduction of a construction committee as a separate construction authority that would have, using the proposed powers, suspended the construction authority of the first instance (the city government) and the overseeing activities of the city council. Regardless of the existing party divisions and personal animosities of the city government members, the master plan proposal of 1909 stood no chance at the city council vote.