It's quite obvious which part is the egg and which the chicken.
People are drawn to areas for a variety of reasons. A more localized government is merely a rational reaction to the needs of a large community, a form of organization after the fact (or merely a result of following established standards and practices, rather than rational need).
What is distinct in this story seems to be the absence of government following the initial growth phase. Maybe due to a lack of stable functioning economic systems which incentivize the organization of municipal governments.
But the cities and infrastructure which we live in are very much the result of people who were initially just 'doing it on their own' before formalizing systems of organization. I know it's trendy to dismiss pioneers and frontiersmen who built western society but this seems like praising a step backwards.
But maybe thats actually wrong and there was a settlement on the Thames that the Romans rode roughshod over the memory of.
Aren't all cities built by people... on their own? Almost all cities formed spontaneously via market forces or geographical incentives, then eventually organize a more local government system - largely by the same families who founded the village/town.
What exactly are we praising them for?