Physical spaces and the social relations within such spaces are the results of battles between stakeholders, such as prospective investors, the municipal government, and community members, over the ability to realize an imagined space. The conclusion of the British Mandate of Palestine in 1948 marked a change in the pool of stakeholders battling to shape Palestine’s cities. In 1948, and with a new national government, the Haifa municipality had the chance to reimagine the city, its physicality and social realities, in a manner that reflected its specific priorities. Then and now, redevelopment and master plans speak to the municipality’s imagined Haifa, its urban design and restructured social realities. Reflecting on the Haifa municipality’s new vision for the city, this paper takes a historical approach to understanding the iterations of reimagined Haifas. To do so, I consider two forms of writing in tandem: master plans and development plans. Master plans and redevelopment plans are both rhetorical objects that prescribe a future reality for a city. While they diverge in their prescriptive functions, they diverge in how they depict the imagined future. Where master plans have grand rhetoric around ideals for future reality, providing broad abstract claims around a city’s aesthetics and ethos, redevelopment plans illuminate the precise methods to reach this imagined reality, noting what elements of the city must be erased or built to conform to the master plan’s image. Through a comparative analysis of redevelopment and master plans from 1948 to 1968, this paper demonstrates that threading together the reimagined Haifas is an ideal of manufactured connectivity, both physical and relational. Bridging the imagined realities of space with their actualities highlights values and priorities. What is left unrealized from imagined realities points to the spaces of contention between stakeholders, the spaces over which stakeholders are willing to exert effort into molding to fit their own imaginations. Which structures remain standing despite being slated for demolition to expand street width? Which planned intersections never come to fruition? In these discrepancies between the plan and reality are battles over ownership and claims to belonging, to the right to shape space, and assertions of what is just use of space.