This happens to be the exact situation in Seattle. Bellevue is technically a different city from Seattle, across the lake and is where most of the tech is. But

This happens to be the exact situation in Seattle. Bellevue is technically a different city from Seattle, across the lake and is where most of the tech is. But its rather low density, because the people that got in before the tech boom don't want their property values to go down, so there is opposition to allowing dense (5-8 story apartment buildings) development. This low density means that the median house price in the area is like 1-2 million dollars and only tech employees can even afford to rent in the area. And because its so low density, (and because people like living in the city proper instead of a soulless series of office parks) there are a TON of tech employees that end up living in Seattle proper. Which then leads to gentrification in Cap Hill, the University district, Ballard, etc. It also leads to nearly LA style traffic crunches during commuting hours. In my opinion, you can't micro-target your way out of gentrification and sky high urban rents/prices. The only thing you can do is to take away the ability of local communities to oppose high density, build a lot of dense housing where you outpace the population growth and build out in basically every direction, and then build commuter rail lines to connect areas as you build out. Finally though, the city/state has to be the one to actually pay the builders for the housing to go up, not a developer which is where YIMBY experiments have failed. A developer that both contracts for the construction and then sells the finished product has all of the incentives to add artificial costs and delays when a municipality pays them to generate new housing on the market, because every additional building they add marginally lowers the value of every other building they have on the market.