Yes. The work of Ronald Coase on why businesses exist at all is more relevant than ever. Coase asked the question: "why is there such a thing as a business and why are they the size they are? Why isn't everyone an independent contractor? Conversely, why isn't the whole economy one big conglomerate".
His answer is essentially transaction cost and co-ordination overhead. So logically as technology changes those, the natural size and configuration of businesses and other organisations changes.
What has ended up happening is that modern communications has made it much easier to do business to business transactions over larger distances than before, which has led to centralising to a smaller number of specialist firms rather than a larger number of geographically spread firms. This has been very noticeable in areas like law as well. There was a time when a manufacturing business in the Midlands had a local accountant, local law firm, etc. Now that is all centralised in a small number of cities. This has led to a more hub-centric global economy than ever before.
Now you might expect that this same effect would also encourage more remote working which would have the opposite effect on firm concentration geographically. It seems to have turned out that the effect of the same technology within firms has been less drastic. In other words, while it has led to more remote working and more part time working from home, it has not had the drastic effect of completely blowing up the nature of the team.
I suspect this has something to do with human nature and with transaction cost. Basically making a b2b relationship more geographically distant has turned out to be easier than physically dispersing a team within the low transaction cost company boundary.
Google does search for everyone... but Google employees are usually expected to spend at least a few days a week physically co-located with their teams.
All the world's widebody aircraft engines are made by only two manufacturers... who choose to concentrate their own design operations geographically.
As a result, paradoxically it seems that modern technology has led to more geographical concentration rather than less.
If we want to counteract that in the UK, we need to create counterweights to London. To a certain extent that already exists for things like aerospace and high end automotive - if you were starting a new business there you'd be crazy not to do around Derby. The challenge is that in most other areas London is so dominant that its dominance becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. No idea how to do that though.
The effect of transport links on all this is quite hard to predict as well. Do you end up making well connected cities and towns economic extensions of London in terms of creating employment there? (Might as well start a tech company in Birmingham if it's so close to London). Or do you just turn them into commuter communities?