Urban renewal in 2026: TAMA 38 is over, and what took its place

Urban renewal can be described as an idea — a city renewing from within instead of spreading outward. In practice it is a legal instrument, and legal instruments lapse on a date. TAMA 38 has lapsed, and the practical question for an owner in an older building is not whether renewal is a good thing but which track the building is now on.

TAMA 38 — the national outline plan for strengthening existing buildings against earthquakes — stopped applying to new permit applications in summer 2024. The National Planning and Building Council ruled that a local authority seeking an extension had to submit a replacement plan.

Who extended, and until when

Fifteen authorities were granted an extension — until May 2026 or until their replacement plan was approved, whichever came first:

Three authorities discontinued the plan outright — Lod, Bat Yam and Bnei Brak — and nine approved independent replacement plans. The May 2026 date set for the authorities that extended has already passed.

Currency warning: planning status is local and it changes. The list above is documented in a report of 27 September 2024, updated 11 October 2024. Before any decision, check the plan's status with the relevant local committee — not with an article.

The three tracks that remain

1. Local urban renewal plans — what is called building-level renewal. Instead of one national plan, each authority defines for itself what is permitted, at what height and at what addition ratio, and the governing document is the local plan rather than the TAMA.
2. Amendment 139 to the Planning and Building Law, known as the Shaked alternative — the legislative track meant to replace the TAMA.
3. Pinui-binui — demolition of a whole complex and rebuilding, as opposed to strengthening and adding to an existing building.

The practical difference between strengthening and pinui-binui is not only architectural: it replaces the question of how much the building gains with the question of what each owner in the complex receives, and it moves the centre of gravity from the building permit to the agreements between neighbours.

The majority that moved the field: from 80% to 67%

The central obstacle in pinui-binui was never planning. It was consent. The Pinui-Binui (Incentives) Law, 5766-2006 originally required the consent of 80% of the apartment owners in a complex. The 2021 Economic Arrangements Law lowered the requirement to two-thirds — 67% of all the apartments in the complex, with further conditions regarding shares in the common property.

That reduction is not a nuance. In a building of twelve apartments it is the difference between ten consents and eight.

A refusing owner — what actually happens

Once the special majority is reached and an owner refuses, the matter goes not to an administrative body but to a civil court. The court examines whether the refusal is reasonable, and where it finds it is not, it may establish the refuser's liability in tort towards the other owners, or appoint a representative on its behalf to sign.

What counts as reasonable refusal is documented in case law and in the legal literature, and includes:

• Economic unviability of the transaction for that particular owner.
• No alternative housing for the construction period.
• Securities that are insufficient to secure the consideration.
• Special personal circumstances.
• Accessibility adaptations left unresolved in the replacement apartment.

So refusal is neither a veto nor mere stubbornness — it is a claim examined on its merits. An owner weighing refusal and an owner pushing the deal forward are on the same legal track, and both need their own representation. What independent representation looks like against the developer's lawyer is explained in the article on your own lawyer.

What it means for a buyer of a new apartment, not an existing owner

A buyer purchasing an apartment in an urban renewal project stands in a different position from the existing resident. The same instruments apply as in any purchase from a developer: the specification, the payment schedule, the statutory security and the inspection period. Details in the article on the seven per cent and the securities and the article on the payment schedule.

The one difference that touches the buyer directly is the schedule: a project that depends on the consent of existing owners carries a timing risk that construction on vacant land does not. That is a figure one can ask about before signing, and read in the handover clause of the contract.

What to ask, in this order

1. Which track the project is on — a local plan, Amendment 139, or pinui-binui. Each produces a different schedule.
2. The plan's status at the committee — deposited, approved, or in preparation. This is public information.
3. Whether the special majority has been reached — in pinui-binui this, not the planning, is the decisive question.
4. What the securities are — for the existing resident and for the new buyer, and they are not the same.
5. What handover date the contract states — and what happens if it slips. Explained in the article on late handover.

Urban renewal is one of Tawfik Zidan Ltd's three fields of activity, alongside residential and public buildings, and a pinui-binui project on HaYotam Street in Haifa has the status "coming soon". Details in the article on that project, and the rest on the projects page.