But if they don't rely on physical location, why would anyone want to live there? (assuming you mean remote workers)

What I'm reading / glancing over is that they want to create campusses, modeled after some SF software company headquarters. That would only work in SF, because said software companies aren't going to move out of SF anytime soon. Even then they'd stick to bigger cities where the jobs are.

The only real reason is cost of living. If you build it yourself you could omit half a dozen middle men who make money from real estate as well as potentially local taxes, planning regulations you dont agree with, etc. You could then pass this on in part as higher wages.

Nonsense. The middle men are part of the economy of real estate. Building, selling, reselling, tenanting… These are all economic activities with associated costs. These costs are higher where you are working within an existing cities where there are already people, property owners, residents, communities, local governments.

So, yes building in the middle of nowhere reduces your costs. Mostly because land is cheap, but also other reasons. The thing is, those reasons are both cause an effect of the higher value of those houses. people will pay through the nose to live in a roach infested box in central London, Manhattan & San Francisco fro precisely those reasons. These places have people, jobs, vibrancy and the tangle of all these that makes it very to build on a large scale but give these places an unmistakably organic feel.

So you disagree with me where? The vibrancy of big cities is great - all im saying is that theres a segment of the population who would rather live in a less vibrant neighbourhood with a better home and more pay. Which is entirely achievable.