I was more thinking on a national scale.

Cities are far more efficient than having everyone smeared across vast swaths of suburbia. And changing culture in a targeted way is not exactly an easy thing to do.

Reversing the entire Industrial Revolution seems harder than just building more houses.

That's a recipe for urban/suburban sprawl and an absolute disaster for the environment.

Even low density housing through basic human presence distorts natural environments.

It's basically like this in terms of environmental impact:

No humans >>>>>>>>>>> a few humans >>> many humans >> enormous amounts of humans.

I don't think that's possible (other than indirectly such as by improving high speed rail so people can benefit from cities without living there). By their nature cities provide greater access to desirable amenities such as art, culture, museums, and niche hobbies.