The moving of Kiruna is so fascinating. The whole city is so very dependent on the mine, and if they don't move it the mining will stop, and the city would probably shrink dramatically / die.
But on the other hand it's an extremely complicated process to move a whole city. I think it started in 2004 or something, and back then you could barley notice the fences far away (at least as just a visitor). But every year I've been there they have moved closer, cordoning off bigger and bigger parts, and this summer they were just up against the city center.
It will take many decades before most shops/amenities/people have moved to the new city, and in the transitional period both the old and new will be bad. Who wants to be the first shop-owner to move to the new, almost empty city?
And there are many interesting power balances. According to Swedish law the mining company is supposed to pay for all damages made due to mining. But the devil is in the details. How much should people get compensated for their old homes? There's no fair market value for a house in a city which is about to be demolished. Building a new house to modern standard/code is probably more expensive than what the old house is "worth", etc.
Not to talk about all the non-financial losses of seeing your whole neighbourhood, where you might have lived for your whole life, just disappear.
Out of curiosity, do you have a personal connection to the town?
> It will take many decades before most shops/amenities/people have moved to the new city, and in the transitional period both the old and new will be bad. Who wants to be the first shop-owner to move to the new, almost empty city?
I don't doubt that there's going to be pain. When I briefly visited the town some time ago, though, it seemed to me like the larger stores were maybe a couple of kilometers from the town center anyway. I'm not sure a couple of kilometers will stop people from going into those.
A smaller shop might of course be more in a pinch for a while, as could a pub or a restaurant.
Of course someone with a personal take would probably know better.
What interests me perhaps even more is the personal attachment people might have to the existing neighbourhoods, buildings and locations, and the non-financial loss of those, as you said. The town did seem to have some kind of an atmosphere of its own, although that could of course be entirely in my mind, not in those of the people actually living there.
There were some news relatively recently that the iron available seems to run out faster than expected. I don't recall the details but seemed pretty severe news. Do you recall?
In a few decades they will have fully-automated mining robots. Then there won't be any need for the city. Only reason they live there now is because miners are better paid than most engineers.
But on the other hand it's an extremely complicated process to move a whole city. I think it started in 2004 or something, and back then you could barley notice the fences far away (at least as just a visitor). But every year I've been there they have moved closer, cordoning off bigger and bigger parts, and this summer they were just up against the city center.
It will take many decades before most shops/amenities/people have moved to the new city, and in the transitional period both the old and new will be bad. Who wants to be the first shop-owner to move to the new, almost empty city?
And there are many interesting power balances. According to Swedish law the mining company is supposed to pay for all damages made due to mining. But the devil is in the details. How much should people get compensated for their old homes? There's no fair market value for a house in a city which is about to be demolished. Building a new house to modern standard/code is probably more expensive than what the old house is "worth", etc.
Not to talk about all the non-financial losses of seeing your whole neighbourhood, where you might have lived for your whole life, just disappear.