Ironically factory towns would actually be better.
In a factory town, the housing is a recruitment incentive and benefit (that ironically keeps you trapped because the non-factory town alternative is so much more expensive). But at least then the objective is to keep the housing affordable and accessible to employees of the company, and the ecosystem that keeps them happy. Whereas it seems like everywhere else in the US (and in highly desirable places internationally) people have decided that a place to live is an asset, and that the price must always go up.
Compare the limitations on use between say, a 20-40 acre parcel of land in a rural area, and the limitations on use for a 5000 ft parcel. Then go further and take a look at municipalities that are barely a step removed from having an HOA looking over your shoulder about everything you do with regards to your house.
Leaving aside the history of zoning as a method of excluding "undesirable" residents, zoning is an artificial, and inefficient (because code is a function of rulemaking, not of economics, and rooted in assumptions that may no longer be true) way of regulating land use.
For example, there's a lot of zoning and code regulation around needing adequate parking for residential developments which assumes some average number of cars which is pretty much always just incredibly wrong. In high cost of living areas without transit, the regulations understate the amount of parking needed because each unit has multiple residents (you need one or more roommates to get by, and everybody needs a car.) In high density areas designed to be walkable with a high density form of transit nearby, the regulations overstate the amount of parking needed per unit of housing.
The funny thing is... if you mix commercial and residential, often times you can balance the use of parking spots. During the day - the spots are used by commercial users. In the evening, those users leave, and the commuters who live in the mixed use development can then use those spots. Think about all the commercial/industrial parks - full during the day, and then empty (with the exception of box trucks in the evening) at night. Most of these companies are not going to be running second and third shifts, so those spaces are just unused 2/3rds of the day (so why all the Waymos decide to chill in my neighborhood instead of finding an empty stretch of street next to the storage yard a few streets over is just strange.)
I'm not going to go around telling people that capitalism is an unbridled good, but I will say that efforts to regulate how much money people make often backfire in unexpected ways. Consider if a single company owned the land, built housing, retail, commercial, industrial space, and also built high density transit and shopping plazas. They could afford to partially subsidize the transit during the early years while filling out the various developments, until they reach a level of density that makes it self-funding.
While they never fully realized the original premise, Disney's Reedy Creek improvement district could be considered an example of this type of development:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...