I like "congestion" pricing because it makes the inner city start to bear more of the weight that it causes the lighter and less costly exurbian cities.

Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))

Bailo -- doesn't Kent have a downtown?

It's more likely that the employees would move closer to the business, not the other way around.  'Specially in areas where the employees are so spread out that a change in business location would only bring it closer to a few people, and not the majority of their employee base.

If Kent has a downtown, then it is really more like a town than an exurb -- a town is a whole different thing, because it allows for a central business district.

so that the employees of a particular firm are not grouped together

Yes, but in the hub system, you get exponential density towards the hub, and exponential inefficiency.

With travel along the "circle" you get linear densities.

If Kent has a downtown, then it is really more like a town than an exurb

Kent Down Town is more symbolic than functional.  It has the vestiges of the Old Town plus a lot of good shops and restaurants (probably the best sushi bar in the Puget Sound is Sushi Kuine in downtown Kent).

The commercial areas are more along the major aterials such as West Valley Highway, Kent Kangley Road, Benson, and so on...

Whereas if the employees and businesses are all in a central district, businesses are all in a central district, the average commute is relatively small.

Sigh.   Surely you don't work for a living?   Otherwise you would know of 2 hour commutes from Bothell to Seattle each and every day.

Since this is the second time I've heard this idea, I'm wondering if there is someone on the Right who is pushing this.

I'm on the Right and I'm pushing it.   You can take off your tinfoil hat now.

Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))

Whereas if you lived in the burbs and it took ya the same amount of time to get to work, not only would the wait be frustratin', but so would the extra milage, wear on the car, and gas used that wouldn't be as bad in a central location.

Walkable and bikable cities are the best option, because things are located close together.  Less gas used, less resources spent on building ever-firther out roads, utilities, more police and fire to cover the greater distances, less land taken from agriculture and wilderness.

Plus, dense cities usually foster more sense of community and place than burbs do.  People know each other, and see their neighbors every day, whereas in the burbs, most people just get up, drive off, drive back, and only see neighbors when mowin' a lawn or at an organized event.

Dense cities also foster more of laid-back atmosphere, as opposed to burbs, which support an atmosphere of emptiness or indifference.  Dense cities are more likely to have walk-in and independent resturaunts, people are more likely to support small independent shops, know their children's friends and teachers, and support community efforts and coalitions.

I'm glad that Kent has some good stuff within a short distance , and I hope they continue improving the bike situation.  And if you just came up with a Right-wing sentiment independently, fine -- although I don't know what a tin-foil hat is.

The point is it doesn't.  50 of all travel in Kent is within Kent.   25 percent is to adjoining communities.

Walkable and bikable cities are the best option,

Which is why I'm on the Kent Bicycle Advisory Board working to make Kent even more bikeable and walkable.

usually foster more sense of community and place than burbs do.

Downtown seattle is far more anonymous and desolate than Kent which has festivals, fairs and other activities.   Many group evevts are clustered around schools and churches.   City government provides another hub.
Seattle, because its density, is highly dangerous and unfriendly to bikes and people.

The Exurbian "city" of Kent is the 21st Century.

It will take Seattle at least 100 years to de-densify to a reasonable level that makes it compatible with Everett, Bellevue, Issaquah, Renton and Kent.

As it is now, the old urban center are ancient dinosaurs, throwing their weight around and braying as they sink into the tar pits of modern design.

Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))

Seattle  -- I've never been there, this is all secondhand -- seems to have invented the term "skid row".  I don't know what the shape of its downtown is now, but most American cities let their downtowns turn into, at best, corporate daytime-only, rather sterile entities.  Ideally, as people move back into those downtowns, that will bring in retail, a nightlife, and then it will be much more attractive -- particularly if you get good rail from the towns surrounding Seattle.

I'm thinkin' that has more to do with Seattle's sheer size compared to Kent.  Any large city, dense or burb based, is more likely to have a sense of anonymous than smaller cities.

Dense large cities still foster a better sense of community than large burb cities, though.

It will take Seattle at least 100 years to de-densify to a reasonable level that makes it compatible with Everett, Bellevue, Issaquah, Renton and Kent.

There's a difference between burb development and cluster development.

Burb development is almost entirely residential, with an occassional shopping center or entertainment complex.

Cluster developments are smaller, more dense, and are centered around areas of business as well as shopping and retail.  The cater to all resident's needs-work, live, and play.

Renton, kent, and the others are more akin to large towns or cluster developments than they are to burbs, even if some of the population still commutes to Seattle.

Think about pre-highway America, when transportation costs were much higher. Cities and towns both were far denser.