Yeah, it's seems like the author has a solution looking for a problem. These companies have plenty of money. If their employees didn't like these suburban campuses they would move to cities.
Or perhaps the best catches would never walk in for the interview because they find it a synthetic asphyxiating saccharine fabrication, centered around an automobile and isolation.
The best people out there can make money literally from anywhere, why the heck would they go to some compound of industrialized personalization like that?
The OP had a fairly significant self selection bias.
The notion that the current employees would want to move to the cities using that argument could be replaced with anything. "Night shifts" or "working in the nude"; they accepted the job under these conditions.
I don't know if I'm one of those "best catches" (I strongly doubt it), but I do know that I'd rather work in a place that pretends to be open and relaxing and full of life and fresh air than one that doesn't even try to pretend to be any of those things.
Of course, I'd much rather life and work in the real thing, which is the literal opposite of what the article proposes, so there's that.
The implication was in the negotiation. The best people I know can swing a full salary coming in one half of one day a week.
If you think people who only need to work 4 hours a week would waste their time in the overhead inherent in the structure of a corporate office park then you don't know people who value their time
It's a pretty common career arc for people to start working in the city, move out to the suburbs, and then eventually want to find a job in the suburbs to have an easier commute.
> The best people out there can make money literally from anywhere
Since an office can only be in one place and therefore satisfy one subset of 'the best people's preferences - remote working is the logical conclusion for getting the best people who are also fussy about location.