This Got Long And Then I Decided It Probably Should Be It's Own Post Rather Than Clogging Up The OP's

This got long and then I decided it probably should be it's own post rather than clogging up the OP's notes, but I've seen this post around a few times now and it has only gotten more frustrating each time I see it again.

--

As someone who has had the pleasure of visiting cities that are vastly more walkable than most of those I grew up in, or most of those which exist in the US at all, I want to be clear that I am 1000% in support of walkable cities.

This list, however, is... troubling.

For one thing, what do lawns have to do with walkability? Nothing, or at least nothing directly. Lawnowners who don't want sidewalks next to their lawns are a separate issue, and making them deal with sidewalks anyway will always be easier than trying to ban lawns entirely. Especially when lawns don't really pose a water issue in many areas where drought isn't an issue, and they do provide homeowners with an easy and low-maintenance way to fill their yard with something green and alive that helps combat things like global warming a lot more than a block of highrises with sidewalks right outside would do. Or yards filled with, like, rocks and decorative fake plants, which would be the option some people would chose if they weren't allowed to grow a lawn instead.

(Yes, trees could be planted along those sidewalks by the city, but it is still often beneficial to focus on one goal at a time instead of shooting yourself in the foot by demanding everything right out of the gate. Especially when most people aren't going to see these goals as connected, when plenty of people are also perfectly happy to let their neighbors walk down the sidewalk next to their lawn.)

Then there's the issues of single family homes and access in cities for cars. At least the single family homes point specified "in cities," which I appreciate and support to an extent, insofar as "homes" is used to mean "separated houses," here. I'm gonna be honest, though, given some of the other points, I'm not sure how much to read into this particular one. I am firmly of the belief that families deserve individual living spaces with a reasonable degree of privacy from their neighbors, though, as do any people who want a bit of privacy and a space to call their own whether they live in a city or outside of one.

It's not always feasible, and I support plenty of appartments and high-density housing within a city, too, but take that idea too far and no one deserves to be crammed into the modern equivalent of tennement housing just to make the city a few blocks shorter on any given side.

As for cars, while I also 1000% support better funded, more comprehensive, and more accessible public transportation options, banning cars entirely is nonsensical. Even the most accessible public transport will still have issues for many disabled people, especially disabled people who need to travel to, say, a doctor's appointment or emergency hospital visit at either peak travel times when public transport will be incredibly busy, or outside of normal travel times like the middle of the night when it doesn't, actually, make sense to have the same number of bus drivers/train operators/what have you running the same number of routes as are available during the day.

Plus, not allowing cars majorly complicates the ability of people to get out of the city (or into the city from outside of it) if they don't have somewhere outside city limits to store a car/friends to pick them up/other easily available options for switching to a car outside the city in the event they're going somewhere that's not on a train or bus line. Even if every small town were linked up to bus and train lines, it would still take longer and likely require one or more transfers and significantly more advance planning to get between the city and small towns, and it would still be impractical to link up every cluster of farmhouses in the country with easily accessible and conveniently frequent public transport options, even just to major hubs.

If you don't think that would only worsen divides between "city folk" and "small town" folk who already get enough propaganda shoved down their throats on both sides against the other side, then I really don't know what to tell you.

Just off the top of my head, it makes it harder for people to commute and would force many of those who can only find jobs in the city to live there whether they want to or not, and vice versa; it makes it more difficult for people - especially disabled people with special accommodations needs - to visit family living in different locations, which can cut vulnerable people off from vital support structures; it also cuts down on options with the greatest personal autonomy for people who need to leave dangerous situations that they'd be able to leave easier/feel more comfortable leaving if they had access to their own car (though I'll be fair - this one applies in both directions; free and accessible public transportation also makes it easier for people in bad situations to escape those situations when they don't have access to their own form of transportation. Which is among the many reasons I am not arguing against a need for free and accessible public transportation, too, here); public transportation breaks down sometimes, and people often still need to get places when that happens.

The "architecture must be beautiful again" point is, I'll admit, mostly just annoying to me. What gives one person the right to decide what counts as "beautiful" over other people? Plenty of people today think of the architecture and styles of, say, the 70s in the US as pretty ugly, but many people in the 70s in the US thought that style was pretty groovy back then. Most people would agree, even when it was more popular, that brutalist architecture isn't very pretty, but I can list off a handful of people I know personally who disagree and would bet that they aren't totally alone in their opinions. I do think it's nice to walk down streets with architecture I find beautiful, and I think a lot of America very solidly misses that mark, but it would probably be more practical to include in a list like this that architecture should be made with quality and care and an eye to longevity, again. And then we're back on that being really it's own topic, and only tangentially related to walkability of cities.

(Hell, plenty of people find lawns beautiful, and in fact not ruining the aesthetic is one reason plenty of lawnowners cite for not wanting sidewalks plonked in next to their lawns. So I'd argue that "beautiful things to look at while walking" is its own double-edged sword.)

As for these points:

All public transportation should be 100% free.

Every commercial street should have at least one bench.

Public restrooms must be free, common and accessible.

I don't have any gripes with those. They're just 100% accurate and should be priorities for anyone who cares about progressive policies around public amenities, whether or not you care about walkability.

A Zuko and Iroh gift for a friend :’3 These two are her favourite AtLA characters, as well as mine. Coloured ink, 2016

The line between kink and horror is measured only in cowardice

Steve: Okay! Fine! Yes, Max is here, and so are monsters. Also there's a government conspiracy. I'll tell you everything, just stop saying weird words!

It never would have made sense, in AtLA, for Aang to kill Ozai at the end. Not only because it wouldn't make sense for Aang's character, but also because it would have gone against one of the major themes in AtLA: that part of growing up is learning how to trust in and take responsibility for your own choices. It's something all the main characters have to grapple with, and it's one of the many ways that Zuko and Aang specifically are paralleled with each other through the show.

So when Aang goes off seeking counsel from prior Avatars, on a narrative level they have to advise him to kill Ozai, and he has to make and stand by his own choice for himself. It's one last attempt by Aang to foist the responsibility for his choice(s) as the Avatar off onto someone else - one of his central conflicts that he struggles with across all three seasons.

When he finally faces Ozai, however, he has to make his choice. Not the choice any of his friends would make, not even the choice other Avatars would make. And he has to accept that choice and face it head on. That last part is critical, too, and the reason why he almost fails to take Ozai's bending until he faces him directly, until he looks Ozai in the eyes and acknowledges the full scope of how he has chosen to end that battle.

He can seek counsel and listen to the views of others, but in the end he has to choose what actions he can live with in himself for himself.