Of course not.
You can craft an expansive set of rules restricting what maps are legal and what maps are not, but as long as there is more than one possible legal map that can be drawn, the politicians will choose that which they deem most beneficial. You can outsource the entire process to a commission, but in the end the commission will also draw the map they find most pleasing for whatever reason. Often this will result in a swing-seat gerrymander or some sort of bargain they deem "fair". But either way it's still drawn with a purpose of achieving some end. Gerrymandering is an unavoidable evil within our system.
It's hard to get rid of gerrymandering altogether, but if you look at the process in almost any other country with single member electoral districts you'll see that it's possible to do a lot better than in the US. Even the worst seats proposed by the Boundary Commission for England in their recent provisional proposals are nothing compared with some American districts (which, given Mersey Banks, is saying something). Even some US states - like Iowa and, now, California - seem to show that it's possible to do much better within the US system.
