If you want to relocate more people into cities in an increasingly-WFH world, you're going to have to make city living vastly less expensive, increase the quality of the housing, as well as dealing with the crime, homelessness, noise, and other difficult problems. It's not going to happen, is it?
People won't accept being pressured to relocate into grim megacities while leaving the rest of the planet mostly uninhabited.
The point is to address why city is SO expensive while suburbs are so cheap. Even thought suburbs require a new set of infrastructure to be built in the middle of nowhere and where density of housing is rarely enough in the long term for the tax base to pay for the suburbs. Very often, this is the city that is subsiding suburban living.
You're referring to tax structure. It's a form of wealth redistribution; corporations in the city center, and businesses in dense strip malls all around, are the big earners in the city. Suburbanites already feel like they pay high taxes on their houses, at a discount, notwithstanding the obscene cost of mortgages.
You could drastically revamp zoning laws and still living in the outskirts would be less expensive (See: Japan). Of course we should do this because it creates more options and opportunities for consumers and which NATURALLY increase density of cities without the need for senseless coercion.
Solve the first two points (make city living vastly less expensive and increase the quality of the housing) and a lot of other problems go away.
Bothered by homeless people sitting on the street? A lot of them would rather be in a living room. Got mugged recently? While it doesn't excuse the mugger's behavior, they'd be less likely to commit the crime if their rent was dramatically cheaper. Don't want to listen to your neighbors arguing? Changing up the walls in your apartment building can help a lot.
People won't accept being pressured to relocate into grim megacities while leaving the rest of the planet mostly uninhabited.