Dozens of residents on Arvei Nahal Street in Tel Aviv say an urban renewal project that has been in development for years has been halted over one question: whether parking can be retained in the new building. According to the residents, the demand to give up the existing spaces forces them to choose between protected rooms and proper protection on one hand, and parking rights currently registered in the Land Registry on the other.
The project involves two buildings from the 1960s with no protected rooms, elevator or standard bomb shelter. They contain 22 households, including elderly residents. The plan calls for demolition and reconstruction following lengthy planning procedures and agreements among the residents. According to the residents, however, it stalled at an advanced stage because the municipality objected to a vehicle entrance and exit for the new project.
The residents’ main argument is that the existing complex already includes eight apartments with eight registered parking spaces and an active parking entrance. Doron Yehieli, one of the residents’ representatives, described the building as “a danger to the lives of 22 families,” adding that it stands “on crumbling columns, without protected rooms, without an elevator and without a standard shelter.”
The dispute is taking place against the background of a new Tel Aviv-Yafo Municipality policy on parking entrances in lots located along streets designated for commercial use. Among other goals, the policy is intended to strengthen commercial frontages, reduce vehicle crossings over sidewalks and encourage public transportation. Arvei Nahal Street is covered by the policy, but residents argue that it is being applied too rigidly in their case because the parking entrance already exists.
Attorney Eran Israel, who represents the residents, said the policy’s application in this case was unreasonable. “Anyone is welcome to visit Arvei Nahal Street and see that its connection to commerce is entirely incidental,” he said. He added that it was difficult to understand why the municipality would not allow an exception where active parking already exists in the building.
The residents also claim that the reasons given for rejecting the request changed during the process. A planned public transportation lane was initially cited, followed by proximity to a future bus stop and, later, a risk to pedestrians near the parking exit. According to the residents and professionals involved in the project, some of these claims were not supported by a safety or traffic opinion presented to them.
