SkyscraperCity banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Miłośnik tabaki
Joined
·
248 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I've noticed that many people are surprised when they see photos from Iran.. they had expected something like burkas, hijabs, separated women and men - but what they've got is quite different. Actually, in my opinion, Iran looks like modern, clean country with people trying to live their lives. But what we see in West mass media is unstable country, with fear and fights on the streets and many Islam fanatics.

So, here's the idea. May the people living in Iran show us how their country actually looks like - how looks the daily life. From morning, through the day, to the night.

I'd be pleased to read any infos and see any photos, that show us a REAL face of Iran.
 

·
Persian 44
Joined
·
10,217 Posts
Hi Viertel, please check out the main Tehran pictures thread in the international section that is in my signature. It covers all areas of Tehran, daily life, people, streetlife etc.
There is more than 50,000 pictures over 500 pages. I post the link below for you as well:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=351718

Enjoy :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
416 Posts
Iranian city population (2016 census)

Our country population, just out: 79,926,270. very impressive annual growth rate of 1.24%. Lowest in middle east. So much so all the 'nezam' incentives for growth boost.

Top 10 City Population.

1. Tehran 8,737,510
2. Mashhad 3,372,660
3. Isfahan 2,243,249
4. Karaj 1,973,470
5. Shiraz 1,869,001
6. Tabriz 1,773,033
7. Ahwaz 1,302,591
8. Qom 1,292,283
9. Kermanshah 952,285
10. Urmia 750,805

"نتايج سرشماري - جمعيت و خانوار به ترتيب استان، شهرستان". Statistical Center of Iran.
https://www.amar.org.ir
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,028 Posts
on second glance some bad news:

Shahriar, and Eslamshahr have 500,000+ residents, while Varamin, Malard, Qarchak, Qods, Robat Karim, and Rey all have 250,000+ residents.

And we wonder why Tehran has a traffic and pollution problem!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
642 Posts
on second glance some bad news:

Shahriar, and Eslamshahr have 500,000+ residents, while Varamin, Malard, Qarchak, Qods, Robat Karim, and Rey all have 250,000+ residents.

And we wonder why Tehran has a traffic and pollution problem!
Mostly bedroom communities. If they keep expanding the transit system, Iran could actually be a leader worldwide for how to move large amounts of people day in and day out from home to work most efficiently.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,924 Posts
1.24% is great, even lower would be better
but this is one thing good about iran and iranian people i that holistically people are making wiser decisions at least in regards to their immediate family



on second glance some bad news:

Shahriar, and Eslamshahr have 500,000+ residents, while Varamin, Malard, Qarchak, Qods, Robat Karim, and Rey all have 250,000+ residents.

And we wonder why Tehran has a traffic and pollution problem!


part of the problem lies within those towns as well
there is nothing in those cities (except for varamin and rey)
each one of those towns must become like a small independant city (mostly independant) in terms of shopping districts, retail areas, office areas etc so people leave them as less as possible, while still having the commodity of traveling too the main city when they please
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,028 Posts
1.24% is great, even lower would be better
but this is one thing good about iran and iranian people i that holistically people are making wiser decisions at least in regards to their immediate family







part of the problem lies within those towns as well
there is nothing in those cities (except for varamin and rey)
each one of those towns must become like a small independant city (mostly independant) in terms of shopping districts, retail areas, office areas etc so people leave them as less as possible, while still having the commodity of traveling too the main city when they please
exactly. i have seen in tehran, many of the workers in parking lots and other places are from eslamshahr, varamin and other such towns... we can see the side effects of this during rush our traffic.

EDIT: i realized my point wasn't clear. the point i am trying to make is that we need commercial projects, construction projects.... etc etc in those towns not only to make them more independent, but to create jobs so people don't have to come to tehran to work
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,263 Posts
1.24% is great, even lower would be better
but this is one thing good about iran and iranian people i that holistically people are making wiser decisions at least in regards to their immediate family
I wouldn't be that happy about low population growth. Iran right now suffers from a very real problem with a blip in old age numbers. That means the number of middle aged people right now can not be supported by the number of people expected to be in productive work when they get to retirement age. That is a major issue in most European countries that gets brushed under the carpet by immigration. Japan suffers the most from this and that has meant their economy has tanked in the last 25 years or so, even with a fairly high flow of 'foreign' workers from Korea to South East Asia more recently. This unfortunately causes a lot of social issues as with most other mass mirgration movements. 'Exploitation' is not far from this issue either. Ideally the population in any country should be able to sustain that country's social cohesion and viability.

In many ways Afghan workers already fill some of that function in Iran but it is far from a healthy situation. Ideal growth rate should be around 1.8% with anything lower than 1.3% ringing a few alarm bells. It is fine for a few years of adjustment from very high growth rates of 3 to 5% perviously, but if it carries on for longer than it has been recently, it will store up major economic hardship for future generations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,263 Posts
on second glance some bad news:

Shahriar, and Eslamshahr have 500,000+ residents, while Varamin, Malard, Qarchak, Qods, Robat Karim, and Rey all have 250,000+ residents.

And we wonder why Tehran has a traffic and pollution problem!
I believe this is actually planned, to make sure Tehran's population does not go sky high too rapidly. They are called buffer satellite towns in town planning and used extensively in developed countries.


In London for example, we have Milton Keyes just north of the city from the 70s. Initially it was just literally rows and rows of houses and apartment blocks. Infamous for nothing to do there. Even nowadays it has very little life or character of its own. London has many many others all around it unfortunately. It takes a long time for services to catch up with the population. Short of forcing people to open shops or cinemas, or heavens forbid, the government doing it, it would mean chaos in the main cities.

The government can make it more pleasant by providing some green space or sports facilities though. But even that takes a long time and usually gets developed along with independent schools and light industry. It seems worse than it feels to a lot of families who have had to migrate because of lack of jobs or dying villages etc. But honestly there isn't that many easy answers here. Either way, it means people's lives are not as good as they should be, whether in the big cities proper or in the satellite towns.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,924 Posts
I wouldn't be that happy about low population growth. Iran right now suffers from a very real problem with a blip in old age numbers. That means the number of middle aged people right now can not be supported by the number of people expected to be in productive work when they get to retirement age. That is a major issue in most European countries that gets brushed under the carpet by immigration. Japan suffers the most from this and that has meant their economy has tanked in the last 25 years or so, even with a fairly high flow of 'foreign' workers from Korea to South East Asia more recently. This unfortunately causes a lot of social issues as with most other mass mirgration movements. 'Exploitation' is not far from this issue either. Ideally the population in any country should be able to sustain that country's social cohesion and viability.

In many ways Afghan workers already fill some of that function in Iran but it is far from a healthy situation. Ideal growth rate should be around 1.8% with anything lower than 1.3% ringing a few alarm bells. It is fine for a few years of adjustment from very high growth rates of 3 to 5% perviously, but if it carries on for longer than it has been recently, it will store up major economic hardship for future generations.
I think its a phase that must be passed for the greater good in the long run. Sure a generation or two might have trouble but what is far worse is a high population growth , even now iran is really on the brink of many larger issues
Its the biggest root peoblem (at least one of the biggest) in the world in my opinion. Iran has to be far away from its maximum carrying capacity , ideally i think a population stable at 50 -60 million would be a healthy margin. Less would even be better but its just not plausible in the next 150 or so years (nor is 60 really)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,263 Posts
I think its a phase that must be passed for the greater good in the long run. Sure a generation or two might have trouble but what is far worse is a high population growth , even now iran is really on the brink of many larger issues
Its the biggest root peoblem (at least one of the biggest) in the world in my opinion. Iran has to be far away from its maximum carrying capacity , ideally i think a population stable at 50 -60 million would be a healthy margin. Less would even be better but its just not plausible in the next 150 or so years (nor is 60 really)
There is a lot of controversy regarding population management and the whole eugenics links to its origins. Sustainability of natural resources is also a very heated topic right now so there are many aspects to this that run counter to each other. I do understand your point on stable population ideals but there are a few factors that need bearing in mind.

The most important one is man made environmental damage both to nature and man itself. In both the issue has often been reduced to population numbers and it's disastrous consequences. In fact the real issue here is the rate of growth or indeed reduction in population. They both cause major problems either way, as most evident in the famine disasters in India and China right after severe restrictions on birth rates were introduced. Politically they were well intentioned moves to make life better for the whole population but reality is very different to human instinctive assumptions. Soroush in this issue I think you are making a very ideological assumption without realising how the consequences will impact the lives of the less fortunate because let's face it, when it comes to imposing or encouraging 'birth' reduction, it is the poor that get affected most. Unless you run a very strictly regulated economy the rural areas are also going to be decimated with reduced workforce. With a steady low rate of growth of around 1.6 to 1.8 you retain the ability to sustain and improve lives anything outside that will cause problems as we see today with just the 3 years of 3 to 5% growth in Iran 20 years ago. And it's anything but over! Yet the reverse will also cause even more damage that can not be resolves by migration or emigration out of the country.

It really really does not make sense to think or believe low growth rates are any good for any population. They are just as bad as high ones.

Plus the fact that population rate is exponential so expressing it in annual % is a little deceptive. 1.2% growth now actually would mean something like a 15% sudden drop in numbers in 50 to 70 years. It's really going to kill off rural Iran.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,263 Posts
i was mainly thinking for a natural decline in reproduction percentages (done coincidentally by the people's spontaneous decisions) rather than any actual plan (imposed like china)

thats a completely different matter
I understand that but the results would be similar. I totally get your good intentions here Soroush. I should have made that more clear in retrospect. The whole idea of population control is so ideological these days that it does get difficult to sift through beyond the headlines. Honestly, the more I read about the subject and who is actually advocating these needs to restrict population growth, and why, the more I feel repelled by the idea. But that is perhaps one of my fixations that I need to rein in. The ideas go back to the Eugenics movement of the Huxley fame. The names of the same institutes were just changed from Eugenics to Population Growth Control and dressed up as helping the third world. It is perhaps one of the darkest areas of United Nations activities. If you look into it a bit more, the picture will get very murky very quickly.

My point is mass migration is the biggest problem rather than growth, whether within a country or internationally. If there was a steady happy populous without the threat of poverty in old age, then the need for large families would disappear completely. But I don't imagine this is why the birth rate has dropped so drastically in Iran!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,924 Posts
that is true sadly, i understand

and regarding mass migration it is problematic. even normal brain drain has had such a toll on iran. i have been to many places outside of iran with large iranian populations. you see the amounts of iranian youth, groups of friends, students etc, eager to build their lives, but sadly all away from "home", most wish it could of all happened in iran. the amounts of good educated famillies with so much experience and positive cultural impact have left.

within iran things have shifted and are shifting in drastic patterns

although low growth rate is multifactoral. it shows the coming of age of a society, and in the case of iran, aside from the economic and logistics of ageing populations, as a cultural and social evolution, it is a very positive. it is usually a sign of more organized decision making, more societal and social awareness, better education, more parental freedom, growth of women's rights etc


mass migration is a major threat, my question is that if a mass migration happens (i remember reading an article that says a risk of tens of millions migrating to other places in case of a drought or massive water crisis) , how can we predict how iran's landscape would be like? will rural areas be effected more or urban areas? which regions more ? which social group is quicker to leave? will the rich survive by artificially buying water for themselves and will it be harsher on the lower income families or the other way around ? what would the government response be? responce of neighboring countries and the larger global scale? wich county would they migrate to? russia? armenia? georgia? turkey(though they might be impacted on the eastern side)? will there be a flood to europe or would iran even migrate to eastern asia? what will happen to our cities and economy? our borders and security?

it is a frightening thing to happen and it is so hard to imagine such drastic negative changes.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top