Why not? A lot of europea cities went car-centric (building highways through city centres etc) in the 20th century, and a lot of those changes have been rolled back. It won’t happen immediately, but it could easily happen over say 50 years. The barriers are political not technical.
Weather and terrain. Amsterdam is fortunate in being flat, and in having a fairly moderate climate where it's rarely extremely hot or cold. That situation doesn't obtain in most large North American cities. Sure it's possible to ride a bike up a steep hill in Philadelphia in the middle of an ice storm or across Phoenix in a 40 °C heat wave, but it's simply unrealistic to expect most people to do so. We ought to do more to improve bicycling infrastructure in most cities but that will never fix our fundamental transportation issues.
There is a very significant difference between a dense city with a highway through the center of it, and a city that never had a dense center to begin with. Many places that people live in the US only exist because of cars. Without cars, they'd cease to exist.
There are not many cities in Europe that are predated by the ubiquity of cars.
No, it's not really easy to drastically change the density of an established metro area. Zoning/planning is forward-looking. It won't change the status quo that millions of people in a metro area already live (and work) in sparse suburban neighborhoods far from city centers.
This really isn't much different than what already exists. Office parks are already commonly placed in US suburbs. The problem is, because good highways already exist, people don't choose to live in the same places that they work. It is common to live in one suburb, and commute to another suburb.
