Here I feel like it's the urban planners that need to learn more from tech. The article's entire point seems to be that the tech community is not acting like a community because its gathering spaces are not open to members of the local public. That strikes me as an incredibly facile and outdated understanding of the concept of "community". The whole point of globalization and the information revolution of the late 20th century is that location increasingly does not matter. "Communities" are stronger than ever - but they are defined by shared interests and ideals, not historical accidents of where you happen to be located. I personally care not a single more for my own neighbor than for some random individual living in China; in fact, I would probably care more about the Chinese person if he was a "Mozillan" and my neighbor was not. The local Starbucks the author praises is closed to everyone that is not geographically close to its location in Menlo Park; the public Mozilla coffee house is closed to everyone that is not close to Mozilla in the social graph. The latter actually seems like a much more of a real "community" than the former, which allows individuals to whom I have no interest in speaking. That is not to say open and non-discriminatory businesses should not remain the dominant type of commerce; Starbucks has provided me a truly invaluable service by providing a consistent experience of hours of personal office space with accessible free wifi in every city or country I go. But the author has it exactly backwards in his general point; "community" is the antonym, not synonym, of "everyone".