There has been a lot of talk about it... as Tehran is deemed very unsafe now due to the techtonic activity in the area... Also the climatic conditions in Tehran trap a lot of polloution during the winter months, not to mention the rain shadow Tehran is left in because of the Alborz mountain range... Kinda ironic if you think about it, the capital was moved to Tehran because it was more of a safe strategic position for defensive purposes.... So what does everyone think? Also where do you think the capital could be relocated to? Will be good to hear everyones opinions

Heres an article from Mehrnews..

Transferring capital, only solution to save Tehran: expert
TEHRAN, Jan. 17 (MNA) -- The only solution to save Tehran and its population is to transfer the capital to another place, an expert on urban issues Sohrb Mashhudi said on Wednesday.

“Tehran has surpassed all municipal standards,” Mashhudi said at the 13th Expert Assembly of Urban Science Management. “Due to high air pollution the lifespan of Tehrani citizens has decreased by 5 years.”

He said seven percent of the “national” precious time is wasted in Tehran traffic holdups.

In response to those who argue against moving the capital, he said the cost of managing municipal affairs in Tehran and the waste of budget in the city are much higher than the cost of transferring it.

The best solution is to get technical assistance from local and foreign experts, he added.

A professor at the University of Tehran, Majid Kusheshi, blamed massive immigration as the main problem.

“If only the Tehrani citizens were living in the city, undoubtedly there was even negative growth in the population,” he said.

However, the “massive immigration” to the city has led to a complicated social combination of inhabitants, he stated, adding that forty percent increase in population in the past three decades has been a result of immigration.

Source: http://mehrnews.com/en/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=436298

Hmmm, this might actually be a good thing. Tehran is a total mess !

I would say, go for Isfahan.

Yeah I agree, it would be very good... Especially in an event of an earthquake atleast the central governing will remain intacked :S

Esfahan perhaps... yet I read in an article Gilgamesh sent me they are having their own problems as well...

No, the solution is not to move the capital, its to invest in the country side!

if you move the capital, than that new city will turn the same way! I say we save Esfahan, keep the capital in Tehran for now, and started investing in the country side and pushing business's outside of the major cities.

THAT is the only solution.

I hope those nasty developers keep their ugly "modern" apartement buildings away from any other old city! Tehran is 6000 years old but when was the last time anyone heard about historical Tehran? Never? Becuz it's been destroyed and overshadowed by concrete apartement buildings, any other historical city can go the same way.

The Iranians seem to have a newfound liking for preplanned communities, so these are my two suggestions

http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/5889/map1vu3.png (http://imageshack.us)

But that wont solve Tehrans whole problem, the reason why people move there has to be recognized and taken seriously possibilities, jobs, comfort, cultural freedom etc... Even if they wanted, they wont go out of tehran unless they can have the same things in the places they originally came from.

Eitherway, I doubt the problem will be seriously adressed before I see it with my own eyes!

will it be something like Malaysia where they moved the adminstrative sector to a complete new city or are we talking about moving everything?

I would think it will be more feasible to move the adminstrative sector and build a complete new city.

Yeh this is regarding the administrive sector.. central government moving out of Tehran...

Perhaps if a new city was created or a relitively small one it is all relocated to then there will be more call for people to migrate to the new location because the new area will have to be developed therefore more job opportunities

Many nations have promoted similar things such as Brazil or Australia

It will be too costly and management wise it might not be the best solution. I think they will not move the capital. It will cost too much money--plus, a lot of people will loose their jobs as a result--and yet again, other people will gain jobs.

We need a new city only for government like new cities such as parand and pardis!
But it's realy costly!
We have to move all of embassies to this new city, just think about the cost and the time that we should spend
It needs a great program!

Tehran set to lose status as Iran capital | Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/01/tehran-iran-capital)

Expediency council approves plan for new capital – which could be a new or existing city – amid earthquake fears over Tehran

Tehran's days as the Iranian capital appear numbered after a powerful state body approved a plan for a new principal city. The idea was proposed by the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and rubber-stamped by the expediency council.

Seismologists have warned that Tehran is liable to be struck by a catastrophic earthquake in the foreseeable future. It is not clear whether a new capital will be built from scratch or sited in an existing city.

Iran has had numerous capitals during its history, including Isfahan, Qazvin, Shiraz, Mashhad and Hamedan. Since the Qajar king Agha Mohammad Khan declared it capital in 1795, Tehran has become the country's political, social, economic and cultural centre.

Its infrastructure has been left creaking by rapid population growth that has seen it become home to 12 million people, up from 250,000 at the start of the 20th century.

Plans for a new capital were first drawn up 20 years ago, but officials only gave them serious consideration after the 2003 earthquake that devastated the south-eastern city of Bam and killed an estimated 40,000 people. Experts warn that Tehran sits on at least 100 faultlines – including one nearly 60 miles long – and that many of its buildings would not survive a major quake.

Professor Bahram Akasheh, a seismologist and dean of the faculty of basic sciences at Tehran Azad University, said the city had been chosen as capital "by mistake" and its north-eastern suburbs were vulnerable to an earthquake measuring eight on the Richter scale.

He said a new capital should be built between Qom – home to the country's clerical establishment – and Delijan, in Markazi province, an area that has not seen an earthquake in 2,000 years.

Read complete article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/01/tehran-iran-capital (I cut some of the usual irrelevant political bollocks)

Abandoning Tehran?: EC approves plan to relocate Iran's capital | Payvand (http://www.payvand.com/news/09/oct/1318.html)

TEHRAN, Oct. 31 - The Expediency Council has approved a plan calling for the relocation of the Iranian capital to a new city by the end of the 20-Year Outlook Plan. The decision to relocate the country’s political center to a proper place by the end of the Outlook Plan was approved by the Expediency Council on Saturday.

The 20-Year Outlook Plan (2005-2025), which defines a macro strategy for the country’s economic, social, and cultural development, was proposed by Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei.

Tehran is the largest city in the Middle East and is the 16th most populated city in the world. It is home to more than 12 million people. Most Iranian industries are headquartered in Tehran, including the manufacturing of automobiles, electrical equipment, textiles, sugar, cement, and chemical products.

Iranian seismologists have urged the government to move the capital out of Tehran. They say that it is very likely that the city, which lies on at least 100 known fault lines, will be hit by a devastating earthquake one day in the future.

In the 20th century, Tehran became very overcrowded after many people from all over the country migrated to the capital. This, inspired the idea to move the capital to a less populated location.

although im from esfahan i reckon they should move it to shiraz or tabriz....esfahan has many historic places so towers cant be built. and if modernized esfahan will loose its identity:ohno:.
you probably know about that tower they built which they had to demolish half of it so that unesco wouldnt take naghshe jahan of its list. it weren't even tall:nuts:
maby kish???? or a brand new city....sounds exciting.

"Qom – home to the country's clerical establishment –"
Wonderful! :lol:

Could Iran afford to build a whole new city?
I'll tell you now, building a capital is tedious and usually disappointing.
When Washington DC was planned they thought a great deal of people would leave cities like Philadelphia and NYC for this grand new capital, but after a struggle of constructing government complexes, streets, and houses, the city became a complete dump, disease broke out, and the city looked very strange.
Imagine what looks like multiple palaces and temples, surrounded by thrown together wooden houses and fields in the early 19th century.
Moving to an actual city would be a better choice, simply because constructing planned cities is very tedious, like I said, or, simply leaving it in Tehran.

Qom would be practicle given its lack of seizmic activity and its proximity to Tehran but I dont like the sound of its name or its conservative reputation.
I would guess that the establishment are eager to move the capital out of Tehran, given all the post election protests, to make themselves a little less vulnerable.

this is so not a good solution.. invest in other parts of the country.. make esfahan.. shiraz kermanshah what ever just like tehran.. build the cities.. so the people who have immigrated from those areas go back to their own city.. i bet nobody wouldnt love this idea.. and those people themselfs would go back to their city too if they see that their own city what was a total mess is being build and being modern. thats the way to go!

Tehran hamishe paytakht mimoone. che bekhan che nakhan.

^^ Most of the internal migration in Iran is from villages and towns to cities including Mashhad, Esfahan etc. Not from other cities to Tehran.

I think Tehran is a very good capital, I hope Tehran stays the capital...

but than I'm worried about that earthquake thing...

Quake experts urge Tehran move

Scientists in Iran are urging the government to move the capital out of Tehran.

The city, which lies on at least 100 known fault lines could be hit by a major earthquake, they say.

The UN rates Iran as the number one country in the world for earthquakes - whether measured in intensity, frequency or the number of casualties.

In December 2003 a quake in Bam killed about 30,000 people and, in February 2005, more than 500 people died in the Zarand area in another quake.

Experts say on average there's a small earthquake every day in Iran.

Capital move

Tehran is home to more than 12 million people, but few of the buildings have been made to withstand even an earthquake measuring 6 on the Richter scale.

"Tehran must be rebuilt; if not it should be moved," says Dr Bahram Akasheh, a geophysicist at Tehran University.

"Either we have to put up with millions of dead, millions of injured, or we need to move the capital somewhere else and take steps to decrease the population here and make Tehran more resistant to earthquakes," he warns.

According to Dr Akasheh's calculations, there is a 90% chance of an earthquake measuring 6 on the Richter scale hitting Tehran and a 50% chance of an earthquake measuring 7.5 striking the capital.

The only problem is he cannot say when.

'Fatalistic'

"We have to take the issue of earthquakes seriously," he says.

He says Iranians are too fatalistic, believing whatever happens to be God's will.

Instead, Dr Akasheh believes, they should use the skills God gave them to build homes resistant to quakes.

Indeed hardly any of the buildings in Tehran are made to withstand a major quake despite the city's recent major construction boom.

Increasingly, estate agents say customers are worried about whether buildings are safe but it is hard to know for certain without getting a full structural survey.

"I couldn't find a place which I could think of living in without worrying," says electrical engineer Mohammed Serpooshan.

He has just bought an old house with the intention of knocking it down and rebuilding it to be earthquake safe.

"The only way is to start from scratch - that is find a place and build on it myself, applying the necessary standards myself because there's no other choice."

'Move the government'

Mr Serpooshan says he is prepared to go to all this trouble because, ultimately, the lives of his family are at stake.

While this is a possibility for some, it is impossible for the government to refit or rebuild all the public buildings in Tehran - it would simply be too expensive.

The government has announced it will renovate 200,000 rural buildings every year but this is a drop in the ocean in a country with nearly 70 million people, where every major city except Isfahan lies in a seismic zone.

More than half the buildings in Iran are thought to be non-reinforced masonry structures.

"The best way... is to drag the government out of Tehran and put it not far away," says Mr Hosseini, a structural engineer at the International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology in Tehran.

He says there is still space to build satellite towns in safer areas and if some government ministries move outside the capital, others will be drawn out.

Mr Hosseini says he has suggested postgraduate engineering students research new techniques for strengthening old buildings to reinforce them against earthquakes.

So far government efforts have focused on training exercises.

Raising awareness

Experts believe that being prepared can save up to a third of lives in an earthquake so it is well worth the effort.

Millions of school children are trained to dive under desks if an earthquake strikes and then shown how to evacuate the injured.

There are songs about quakes and even cartoons.

But the problem for the government is how hard to push the message.

The worry is that the warnings will alarm people and the government will then have to tell them that there is insufficient money to rebuild their homes and offices.

After the 2003 earthquakes in Bam and the Zarand earthquake in February 2005 there were calls to learn lessons for the future.

But many experts complain that the tendency has been to take the quake threat seriously only when the memory of the latest disaster is still fresh in peoples' minds.

"The hope that I have is that this sort of attention does not wane in the near future," says Mr Hosseini.

He adds that it might be a good idea to pray to God to have more minor earthquakes so as to keep the awareness high.

"Not to kill people but just to warn them that the earthquake is saying 'Be careful, I am here' ."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4346945.stm

This article is from 2003, I think the capital should not be moved, they just must rebuild Tehran!

a new city near qom is just stupid... its so dry and deserted:ohno:... tabriz is the best choice, or urumie, imagine tall skyscrapers alongsige lake urumiye at night:banana:

^^Tabriz is too bad...the location is to close to other country borders wich I think is not good, it must be central...
also Urumiye will loose all it's beautifull nature and that's the beautifull thing about the lake, it's empty and all surrounded by nature, also the lake (some parts) are very dangerouse...
I think Tehran must stay the capital, they just have to rebuild it...

Doesn't Tehran have any earthquake-resistant buildings like San Francisco? I know that some of the good buildings include the Milad Tower, the Azadi Tower, the International Tower, and the Azadi Stadium. Are any of those buildings have any resistance to earthquakes? I am undecided on this capital relocation issue, and most of the posts are for relocation but half of the poll votes are against relocation.

این اتفاق حداقل تا 10 سال اینده رخ نخواهد داد!هیچ شهری در ایران زیرساخت های لازم رو برای اینکه پایتخت به اون انتقال پیدا کنه نداره.چه شیراز چه تبریز چه اصفهان و چه مشهد.به نظرم انتقال پایتخت به هرکدوم از این شهرها باعث نابودی اون شهر خواهد شد.چون در ایران اصولا کار اصولی صورت نمی پذیره.شاید هم منظورشون این بوده که اطراف تهران یه شهرک بسازن و ادارات دولتی رو به اونجا نتقل کنن ، طرحی که قبلا هم مطرح بوده.

پارسی را پاس بداریم ! هر چند اینجا یک فروم بین المللی هست^^

Its made it to the bbc news so I would say they are thinking hard about it

Another recent report

Taking the capital out of a city | BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8338092.stm)

Iran's rulers are considering plans to relocate the country's capital. They say Tehran is in danger of being struck by a major earthquake. So how easy is it to move a capital out of a city, and where might Iran's go? Penny Spiller reports.

Tehran is a sprawling metropolis at the foot of the Alborz mountain range. It is home to some 12 million people, and is the largest city in the Middle East.

Not only is it the political and economic heart of the country, the city has a cosmopolitan air with its museums, art galleries, parks and universities. It has been Iran's capital since 1795.

But now a powerful state body, the expediency council, has approved plans by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to end Tehran's days as a capital.

These plans are not new. They are part of a long-term strategy to see the capital moved by 2025, and will need approval from many more government bodies before any relocation begins.

The government is said to be reacting to calls from Iranian seismologists, who have long warned that Tehran lies on at least 100 known fault lines, and would not survive a major quake intact.

The devastating earthquake that killed some 40,000 people in the south-eastern city of Bam in 2003 has certainly concentrated minds on the issue.

Iranian seismologist Professor Bahram Akasheh told the Guardian newspaper that a new capital should be built between the holy city of Qom and Delijan, in Markazi province.

This is an area, he said, that has not seen an earthquake in 2,000 years.

Distorted market

Wherever the capital moves to, and for whatever reasons, the government will have some other important considerations to take into account if creating a capital from scratch, says Andrew Jones of the engineering, planning and architectural design firm AECOM.

"One of the things about a new capital is that it tends to insulate the government from the pressures and influences of the big city"
Claudio de Magalhaes
University College London

It is all very well moving government buildings and staff, but the new city will flounder if it has no cultural life and its economy is solely driven by the government.

"Generally, our capital cities are economic powerhouses as well as seats of government. That takes a long time to bed in," he told the BBC.

"A new city generally takes 10 to 20 years to build, it takes a century or more to mature into something that is an attractive and self-sustaining place."

Brazil's capital, Brasilia, might be an interesting example for the Iranian authorities to study.

It was built because the coastal location of the old seat of power, Rio de Janeiro, was deemed too far from large swathes of the country.

So the new capital was unveiled in a remote part of central Brazil in 1961.

Claudio de Magalhaes, senior lecturer in planning and urban regeneration at University College London, said this location suited the military government that came to power three years later.

"One of the things about a new capital is that it tends to insulate the government from the pressures and influences of the big city," he said.

In the beginning, Brasilia was inhabited mostly by people whose livelihoods depended on the government.

But over the years it grew, and grew, and grew - confounding the planners' expectations.

"What no-one had predicted was the growth in the satellite areas around the city. These were places peopled by construction workers, cleaners for government buildings, mechanics for employees' cars," Mr Magalhaes told the BBC.

In the early days, land in the centre of Brasilia - known as the pilot plan and now a Unesco heritage site - was compulsorily purchased and given to government ministries who were then able to offer homes to staff.

But as these assets were sold off, they reaped huge profits for the buyers as increasing numbers of people moving to the city sought to live in that area, Mr Magalhaes said.

"It distorted the market. And you had this strange situation whereby large houses with swimming pools outside Brasilia were much cheaper than a small flat in the centre," he said.

'Remake itself'

The total cost of moving Brazil's capital from Rio to Brasilia is so huge it has never really all been accounted for, Mr Magalhaes believes.

Even 20 years after Brasilia was created, the government was still having to pay premiums to get people to move there, he adds.

Losing its capital status also had a huge effect on Rio, which had already seen its economy suffer as businesses migrated to Sao Paulo.

"Local politics became very low level and was dominated by its relationship with the drug lords," Mr Magalhaes said.

Andrew Jones of AECOM believes Tehran will also have a tough period of adjustment if it goes the same way as Rio.

"Although the underlying character of the city will stay, it will lose the added extras that come with being home to the seat of government. It will start to lose cultural institutions and some other components that make it a powerful place," he said.

"But I think Tehran will survive. It has been a major city for thousands of years, so it will recover and remake itself."

Read complete article here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8338092.stm (Politics removed again)

This just seems fishy.

Doesn't Tehran have any earthquake-resistant buildings like San Francisco? I know that some of the good buildings include the Milad Tower, the Azadi Tower, the International Tower, and the Azadi Stadium. Are any of those buildings have any resistance to earthquakes? I am undecided on this capital relocation issue, and most of the posts are for relocation but half of the poll votes are against relocation.
Tehran has lots of earth-quake resistant buildings, but the majority of these buildings are expensive buildings which only the higher class can buy. The Milad tower and the International tower are certainly earth-quake resistant, but I am not sure about the other buildings...

I don't really like this idea. If they want to make a plan to relocate/rebuild a capital city by 2025, why don't they just use all that money to invest in Tehran and make all the government buildings and institutions earthquake resistant (and other buildings)? This is of course assuming the earthquake threat is their major reason for this idea......

I think that this is a strategy to get away from election protesters in Tehran. Don't you think?

They probably realized that being in Tehran, with all those angry protesters is dengerous!

^^the plans of moving the capital are set up 10 years ago maybe longer or something...
I also send an article from BBC it was from 2003 :)
also Tehran is for real on more than 100 fault lines:)
anyway I think they must rebuild Tehran and not move it :)

Make Persepolis the capital again,

Move to marvdasht,,,, sounds crazy i know but its kind of cool... close to Perspolis,,, close to Shiraz but not in Shiraz... and Tehranies dont mind moving to Shiraz if they have to... a lot of tourists fly to Tehran to just take the next plane down to Isfahan or Shiraz.. Umm,,, yeah i think its cool... Not far from the oil centres in the south east... not far from the free trade zones.. and land to expand... along with that its a mixed region of baktiari and persians and kurds

Esfahan or nowhere.

because of the potential earthquake threat?

i found this:

One month after the Expediency Council’s decision, the representative from the city of Shahroud in the Majlis named Shahroud as one of the main candidates to replace Tehran as the capital. Previously, the city of Semnan was named as a potential candidate too. Kazem Jalali, who serves on the eighth Majlis’ national security committee, told reporters that three destinations are in contention to replace Tehran as the capital, though he did not release the names of the destinations.

source: http://insideofiran.com/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3326:plan-to-move-capital-from-tehran-finalized&catid=42:important-news&Itemid=57

i hope this does not happen under this regime because this government is too stupid to build up a new city properly :bash: :ohno:

^^

This has been discussed on these forums before! I nearly laughed when I read Shahrud as the main candidate - Funny how these suggestions are all from Ahmadinejad's home province.

Anyway, I doubt the capital will be moved as even the old Imperial Government discussed this proposal and nothing came of it. The IRI moves like a snail in every manner except perhaps when trying to build a nuclear bomb (:)) so don't worry about this as it'll never happen!

The idea is quite old and discussed many times. This time it's completely political and their argument "eartquake threat" is just a pretext. I believe, it is wholy political, as many other things are now political as well... .
Tehran is really faced to a big danger, danger of a big earthquake, which I even don't want to think about. But changing the capital is very very hard, and should be planned in longterm. As Parsan said, it will never happen under this regime! :)

as iman said it is kinda politic too.anyhow,if we move the capital same things will happen.tehran had a 10 000 population in the begining of qajar period(like 200 years ago) now it turned to a 10milion+ populated(as they say).same thing will happen.none of iran's big city has been made rightly(kheshte aval gar nahad kaj,ta soraya miravad kaj)."off topic: i saw someone saying tehran is 6kyears old,i think that is really far from the truth,i can use a refrance for it :P"

can't go to a kurd place.they may seperate from iran.(kermanshah,sanandaj,...).Tabriz and urmia are near the border and some other probs.shiraz and isfahan are the best options IF they start making the job right!otherwise not only it will ruin it's historical apearance.but it will end up having some more tehran's lol.maybe reconstructing tehran is the best solution?

if they want to make a new capital, they shouldnt target cities like esfahan. tabriz, shiraz, rasht, etc it will ruin the country's history. they should go to a small village type city and build from there. example: ankara was nothing before ataturk made it the capital , now its a nice city.

if they want to make a new capital, they shouldnt target cities like esfahan. tabriz, shiraz, rasht, etc it will ruin the country's history. they should go to a small village type city and build from there. example: ankara was nothing before ataturk made it the capital , now its a nice city.

i agree with you 100%
but i dont want the Islamic regime to make the new capital because they know nothing about city planning
look at the state of tehran

we need a new government first who actually cares about Iran

i agree with you 100%
but i dont want the Islamic regime to make the new capital because they know nothing about city planning
look at the state of tehran

we need a new government first who actually cares about Iran

LOL true, but if we need a new capital city, weil change the govornment first. this govornment is purposely ruining the country, in every aspect, especially the cultural aspect.
till that day comes, i seriously cant wait

LOL true, but if we need a new capital city, weil change the govornment first. this govornment is purposely ruining the country, in every aspect, especially the cultural aspect.
till that day comes, i seriously cant wait

:)

I think giving loans to people for building earthquake prone buildings and repairing old buildings is much cheaper. It's not a practical decision to move the capital to a new place within at least 3 years hence. northern parts and central parts of tehran are well-developed and they seem to be prone to earth quakes under 7.5 magnitude. I still believe Tehran will not be in a huge problem if a 7 magnitude earthquake takes place lasting for nearly one minute. Tehran experienced a 6.4 magnitude earthquake some years ago and it lasted for 55 seconds but it didn't cause a catastrophe and only some few people got injured because of their bad luck (they were under lamp bulbs and things like that). I know that the richter scale is calculated by a 10-based logarithm and a 7 magnitude earthquake is 10 times more destructive than a 6 magnitude earthquake but still I believe We are not in a hurry to move the capital cause the chance of a 8 richter magnitude is very little. I believe the idea of moving the capital is because of the tehrani society which is very open and liberal in Iran and it's growing and attracting young iranians from other cities.

If they want to move the capital to somewhere else, Esfahan and Shiraz are the only choices i think.

unfortunately most of the posts on this thread originate from an antiregime views. those who oppose the idea or think it is a political reason do not see further then their nose.
many countries have done this before. when the city becomes too populated and expands in a short period of time, which is the case in tehran, its role as a political capital becomes crippled. nevermind the risk of an earthquake.
the best solution in my opinion is to build a totaly new capital from scratch. very well planed and organised. it should be somwhere in the middle of the country, and if possible not too fare away from tehran. say about 150 - 200 km. do not forget that apart from solving the problem in tehran, it will generate a lot of job opportunities and the benefits will be far outweight the drawbacks. and anyway tehran had already secured its economical status; decongesting it a bit will benefit it more.
i think this should be done sooner rather then later.

hahaha imagine if like the capital becomes shahroud, wouldnt that sound so funny? like tehran has a grand name, but shahroud is just LOL

unfortunately most of the posts on this thread originate from an antiregime views. those who oppose the idea or think it is a political reason do not see further then their nose.
many countries have done this before. when the city becomes too populated and expands in a short period of time, which is the case in tehran, its role as a political capital becomes crippled. nevermind the risk of an earthquake.
the best solution in my opinion is to build a totaly new capital from scratch. very well planed and organised. it should be somwhere in the middle of the country, and if possible not too fare away from tehran. say about 150 - 200 km. do not forget that apart from solving the problem in tehran, it will generate a lot of job opportunities and the benefits will be far outweight the drawbacks. and anyway tehran had already secured its economical status; decongesting it a bit will benefit it more.
i think this should be done sooner rather then later.

I completely agree Abbas, those same anti-regimers will if God forbid an earthquake happen say, look they didnt do enough to move the capital and they don't care if all those poor people dye.

I was stunned when there was this big campaign a couple of months ago for building a tent city and preparing for an earthquake in tehran that there were all these views that said, look they are preparing to create an earthquake so they can deal with it and get the points! Same concept, if they dont manage the preparations right, there comes the screams oh my God these people dont care about Iranians and when they prepare and train for the likelihood they say look they are wanting to create an earthquake. You are damed if you do, damed if you dont!

I would second that too. The amount of political obsession and illogical rumors is unimaginable here in Iran. People like to involve their political agenda in anything to a point where they make up random news (ie. fake earthquake as mentioned above) and others will gullibly believe.

unfortunately most of the posts on this thread originate from an antiregime views. those who oppose the idea or think it is a political reason do not see further then their nose.
many countries have done this before. when the city becomes too populated and expands in a short period of time, which is the case in tehran, its role as a political capital becomes crippled. nevermind the risk of an earthquake.
the best solution in my opinion is to build a totaly new capital from scratch. very well planed and organised. it should be somwhere in the middle of the country, and if possible not too fare away from tehran. say about 150 - 200 km. do not forget that apart from solving the problem in tehran, it will generate a lot of job opportunities and the benefits will be far outweight the drawbacks. and anyway tehran had already secured its economical status; decongesting it a bit will benefit it more.
i think this should be done sooner rather then later.

I completely disagree that when a city becomes too populated and expands rapidly its role as a political capital becomes crippled. the role of a capital should be more emphasized by its economic opportunities. Tokyo is the de facto capital of Japan and its pretty large and crowded like hell, or London has 8 million residents and its large, or tens of other exampls, all show us that moving the capital for such reasons (either due to the political fear or earthquake issues) is not reasonable. tehran is the economic capital of Iran and in terms of GDP is no comparable to any other Iranian city. moving the capital will not bring good economic benefits at least in short-terms in such a political situation we're in now.

I think no one should underestimate the probablity of and earthquake in Tehran. It's pretty high and it will be a big catastrophe.
The discussion of moving the capital was discussed several times in Khatami's era. At the end nothing came out. The political situation in Iran nowadays is very complicated. Many people distrust the government and don't believe everything they want to do with their arguments which is fully understadable after all they did at least since last year ago.
Moving the capital itself is a good idea. But, they are doing it now without any plan! They came to no real conclusion and now say that they move some parts of some governmental institutions, but their destination isn't clear yet!
Therefore, with the experience the people have from this government and with their mysterious sudden move to move the capital said only some months after the Elections make the people to doubt this move to be political.
Whether it's political or not, there should be a good plan, not like now that every official says another thing.

and where do they want to move the capital to? the deserts?
being a very mountainous country, we should expect Iran to be a host for major fault lines. approximately 90% of Iran is covered by fault lines, here's the map regarding latest recorded earthquakes in Iran:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Map_Iran_earthquakes_1990.gif

there is no way to think of a new capital with the current situation. plus, Tehran surely is not as safe as tokyo but without doubt it's one of the safest cities of Iran in that regard. it will be much easier to strengthen weak structures in tehran rather than moving the capital to another place.

I think moving the capital to the city of Abadeh in northern fars province is the best idea. Because it has a low population and a good potential. about 2.5 hours drive to Esfahan, Shiraz and Yazd. Can be 4 hour drive to Ahvaz if a freeway constructed.

atleast a noticable earth-quake happens in Tabriz every year,Tehran is alot safer than Tabriz and alot of other cities.btw nima I never heard about abadeh.you have any pics of it?

shiraz should be capital

shiraz is already crowded becuz of being a tourist attracting city.with the unstandard way of building the city the result would only be shiraz getting ruined.

This is where Abadeh is:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e2/Abadeh_in_Iran.png

http://abadehnews.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/tol-asiyab-panorama.jpg

shiraz should be capital

NEVER!!!!!!!! it will get destroyed!!!!

If is going to be moved, I am for moving it to Esfahān, but I think that Tehran should remain the capital, but that as much industry and as many people as possible should be moved to other cities.

^^ hopefully they do as you say, but unfortunentaly tehran is jjst getting bigger and bigger

and esfahan would be sucha bad choice!! its already huge, but more expansion would destroy the city

^^ hopefully they do as you say, but unfortunentaly tehran is jjst getting bigger and bigger

and esfahan would be sucha bad choice!! its already huge, but more expansion would destroy the city

Isn't it's population something like 10 times smaller than Tehran's?!?

Anyway, if you don't like the idea of moving the capital to one of the other big cities, what do you think about building a new capital somewhere? Like the Brazilians did with Brasilia in the the 1950's (I think it was finished around 1960)? Or the Burmese with Naypyidaw recently?

^^That's probably a better idea. Build a whole new capital city (close to Tehran) and have all the government officials and employees move there. That would cut Tehran's population by 2 million.

Isn't it's population something like 10 times smaller than Tehran's?!?

Anyway, if you don't like the idea of moving the capital to one of the other big cities, what do you think about building a new capital somewhere? Like the Brazilians did with Brasilia in the the 1950's (I think it was finished around 1960)? Or the Burmese with Naypyidaw recently?


esfahan is huge, its metro has a 2 million pop and the greater esfahan area i think is close to 3 million ppl

and there are alot of small cities around it. since everything is built low,the city area is massive, kindof like athens


nd thats what i ment, to build a new capital on a snall city :)

I am against building a new capital for the moment, because the lunatics running Iran would probably name it Khomeiniville or something disgusting like that.:nuts:

^^ LOLOLOL omg that actually made me laugh :) and its soo truee that is something that those weirdos would name it

I am against building a new capital for the moment, because the lunatics running Iran would probably name it Khomeiniville or something disgusting like that.:nuts:

:lol::nuts::lol:

they can simply call it paytakht just like what kazakhs did when they called their new capital city Astana

if they move tehran (which they shouldnt), its better if they move it to a azeri city such as tabriz, ardabil or urmieh... so we can have a close link with turkey, azerbaijan, russia... and get farther away from countries such as afghanistan, pakistan and the arab world