Do you see any value in a bunch of companies of different specialities planting a flag somewhere and building heir own infrastructure (university, town, housing)? It feels like it could be cheaper and better for everyone’s quality of life.

The history of corporate funded cities (or even government planned ones) is not good. It takes far too long to generate a real community / cultural center vs. the time spans corporations want to work in. Also, the city governments would be highly inclined to align with the interests of the companies, not the residents, which is not a recipe for a fun place to live.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fordl%C3%A2ndia

I’m definitely aware of the history! I’m wondering if there can be mitigation’s put in place for handle them

I don't think anyone's come up with a great substitute for the decades of organic growth and iteration necessary to make a compelling city. Setting aside a deliberate corporate sponsor, how many compelling new cities really started in the last 30-40 years, even by accident? E.g. below 25K population at the start, over 250K at the end.

E.g. I looked through this list, and at least at quick glance it seems like they were all fairly major cities 100 years ago. http://www.businessinsider.com/us-news-best-places-to-live-i...

Much of SE Washington was built around government projects. A tech town with smart people, but low cost of living? Tbh I think it would go well, and possibly positively impact any existing communities near them.

Let's play this out. You create a city of say, 100K, composed of employees from Google, FB, Salesforce, etc. Where do they eat? How much will housing cost given your average income will be several times that of a "normal" city? Do you spread them all out in single family homes (and have massive traffic) or do you force them to live in high-rises?

Where do the restaurants, and arts, and culture they need come from? Who works at those institutions, and how do they afford to live in that city? (Or do they commute from somewhere else?) How do you fund the international airport that's going to be a must-have?

I think it's possible, but I'm unclear how it would actually lead to a low cost of living. It sounds like most company towns - sprawling, lacking the kind of culture that people want from a city... reminds me of Plano, TX, where JC Penny moved in the 80s, or Bentonville, AR, or Sidney, NE (where Cabela's is HQed).

Companies would have a really hard time hiring highly-educated, high demand workers to move there vs being able to live in say, NYC, London or SF. It's not enough to just offer cheap housing - you have to offer a high quality of life, plus jobs for spouses, and good schools for their kids.

You’re probably right. I’m wondering now if something smaller scale can happen in an established city but with lots of room to grow. If you need “critical mass” of talent on an area, send people there! Build things that keep educated people around.

That's really the problem, at least here in SF. The tech industry needs highly skilled employees, rather than local residents. So wherever they land, they bring in a bunch of new people who also need housing (and have high incomes.) I don't think that's inherently bad - but if your city has a bounded housing supply like SF, it's inevitably going to lead to rising rents and displacement of existing lower income residents.

(Contrast that with say, auto manufacturers, who would maybe bring in some managers when opening a plant but would also employ tens of thousands of locals, raising the incomes of the existing resident more than bringing in new transplants.)

Places in the UK that come to mind are railway towns -- Crewe, Swindon, Doncaster, Ashford. They all tend to be doing fine now, despite starting off as a town built around a single employer.

Seattle isn't too far behind SF with regards to housing (according to recent press at least). I've been wondering for years: could the larger employers in SF do more to coordinate which cities are expanded to? I'd be willing to change locations if my (tech) employer gave me the option, but others might have concerns about putting 'their eggs in one basket'. If 10 SF based companies all opened an office in the same city, would more people consider the move? My hunch is yes and I'd love to see this theory tested :)

Rents in Seattle have stayed relatively constant over the past several years despite adding tens of thousands of residents because many new apartment buildings have been built.

However, home prices (including condos) have risen drastically because of the limited supply. There's no new space for single family homes, and because of a Washington law which increases liability for developers, few new condominium buildings are built.