Per the post title: Sometimes, part of the accumulating notes on my desk end up getting tossed, for no better reason than they lack a cohesive framework! I started out however, by questioning some of the similarities and differences that could occur in communities based along the lines of knowledge use systems.
Presently, I'm leaning towards "equilibrium corporation" as an appropriate name for a legal construct, since the term is more descriptive of the underlying rationale, than the "dual" designation I'd recently considered. Equilibrium corporation also provides a recognizable notation for economics as part of an educational framework. Too many political problems of the present, stem from a lack of economic understanding. One of the best things about compensated peer to peer learning is that today's K-12 public education is but a starting point, since some education basics can also be mastered on personal time via digital methods.
Not every community would be "newly created" in the sense of infrastructure and flexible building components for life/work options. An (alternative) equilibrium construct could assist older communities which are considering new beginnings as well. In some instances, partially abandoned neighborhoods might still be viable, provided local infrastructure can be salvaged or possibly reconfigured without excessive expense. I've not lived close to areas of extensive decline during my 60+ years, so admittedly don't know the extent of existing burdens that would be involved.
In other instances, "bedroom communities" could be created for system participants who wish to live near prosperous regions - particularly areas with limited ability to add greater population density for lower income levels. Indeed, it is becoming difficult to generate greater density for middle income levels in today's more prosperous regions.While these new towns would still have a multi purpose center or core, it would likely not be as extensive as "free standing" new communities with a broader array of ongoing activity.
Practicality for low income bedroom communities, also means creating simpler transport patterns to nearby cities. Affordable transportation infrastructure would not only make auto use unnecessary, but take advantage of resource sets within the realm of shared responsibility. In particular, citizens need transportation choices which go well beyond the present debate of self drive vehicles for major cities. As for the transportation difficulties of the here and now: one only wonders how many millions opt out of the workplace, because of the difficulties involved in maintaining older automobiles for long commutes.
Among the more inspiring visual components of these new communities, would be their walkable core. Beauty can become a part of local environment by means of shared time commitment, just as readily as disposable income. These could be among the first walkable communities created in nearly a century, for the average citizen (i.e. not high income retired) who wants to participate in a full range of economic activity without need of an automobile in central areas.
Depending on terrain of course, a series of "spokes" from the center (or downtown) would provide dedicated transportation options, so that different travel accommodations need not maneuver the same pathways and thoroughfares. The nature of these transportation options would help to determine as well, where individuals and families might prefer to locate, should they choose to locate inside of the areas where normal transportation spans the exterior of community boundaries.
Knowledge use systems would provide settings where a wide array of innovations and methods have a chance to be explored and discussed within common frameworks. When new communities are formed via the process of domestic summits, participants will have a chance to review innovation for building and infrastructure which often receives little notice otherwise in developed nations. Developed nations dismiss many such options out of hand. Too much housing has been built in recent decades which looks essentially like all other housing, and these developments use the same resource patterns which are mostly targeted for higher income levels.
Just as each alternate equilibrium construct would be unique, so too would be the environments they would generate. It has been said that variety is the spice of life, and even though these communities would be small by comparison with most towns and cities, in some respects they would actually have more variety and choice than can be found in their larger counterparts.
Update: Thanks to Miles Kimball for this Quartz article by Alex Balashov, about the unfortunate design of today's low density realm which was built especially for cars - http://qz.com/698928/why-suburbia-sucks/