For pure gameplay, this might be useful, sure. But it will always feel arbitrary to me.
Tourism comes in many forms - but yes, having a natural park / wilderness type tourism area clashes with heavy industry. They should not exclude each other in the city, but definitely be kept separate. Wilderness would not fit with most land uses, however. You won't go camping next to office towers either.
Leisure tourism and cultural or event tourism don't care than much about industry, though. Again, the actual destination should not be inside the dirty industrial area, but otherwise, it is quite realistic. Pollution and pollution-like mechanics could help here, lowering the efficiency in ill-suited neighborhoods.
Not everyone in a CITY (not town) with a university will be educated at that level, even though a large university will attract other industries. CS is quite unrealistic here with the university sizes compared to the cities. Not every student would stay in the city, either. The other way round should be considered, though - high tech industry should struggle in cities without reasonable educational facilities. Low tech industries would struggle in university cities due to being outcompeted by the high tech, to a degree. CS cities are large enough to accommodate both sections, however.
I'm not against the idea in principle, but it needs to be sensible. Real cities tend to be quite diversified places, not completely specialized at all. More nudging to one type or another is fine, but hard restrictions should not apply. Replayability could come from optimization, not unlocking paths. It's not like cities get built in a day anyway, one city could be plenty for months.
