This is a predictable outcome of commerce due to the limited supply of land and is described in some detail by Adam Smith and developed by later thinkers like Riccardo and George (who took it to its logical conclusion and inspired the board game Monopoly).
During the 20th century, economics was wholesale rewritten to blur the lines between land and capital so as to bury this awkward conversation.
The general recommendation of these early economists was taxing land - moderate in the case of Smith, up to 100% per George. This amounts to public ownership of part of the profits of land ownership.
No, it is not. Communism tried that and all communist countries failed spectacularly. Public ownership in practice means that everyone has rights but zero responsibilities.
Taking people's private property is not a solution to any crisis. This whole housing thing looks like "I want to have my cake and eat it too".
But then USSR wasn't really communist either, it was far more defined by dictatorship of individuals; which is diametrically opposed to communism.
If you have people living in palaces whilst others starve then you don't have communism - the first principle of which is that benefit of labour is split under egalitarian principles. Whilst rich people getting richer, and the devaluing of people typifies capitalism.
From my considerations, we need to limit wage disparity, eg by a top rate of tax at 100% (I know how that will be received here!). That limits power that can be accrued through wealth too - no more billionaires who can by elections. We also need to give ownership of the benefits of labour to the people; wage limits does that, but a more direct link is possible too and that can aid transition from Western Capitalism to a more equal distribution of wealth. Ultimately, globally we're going to face far more issues with migration as the effects of our past excesses take hold; redistribution of wealth across nations also needs to be accepted if we're going to manage that transition with less war and bloodshed.