That is a problem, sure, and I would love to see a greater supply of smaller, less expensive housing so that people get get off the rent treadmill sooner in life.
But the bigger problem I see is the existence of the institute of rent (including interest, which is rent on money) in the first place, leaving generation after generation of those families too poor to escape it paying half their life's earnings with nothing to show for it, nothing to leave to their kids, leaving those kids in the same circumstances generation after generation.
If it weren't possible to rent (which doesn't require banning anything, just render certain contracts unenforceable), so housing had to be sold instead (on terms comparable to rent payments, otherwise nobody would be able to buy it and everyone's real estate investments would become worthless), then the money people are currently paying landlords (and banks, for those wealthy enough to rent money instead) would accumulate as equity in housing that they could leave to their children, even if those children have to continue paying it off, and eventually we'd have a world where the housing people are already living in was owned by the people who live in it.
Who, back on point, could then get by with much lower incomes, and so could accept much lower wages, lowering the greatest cost of business, and consequently the cost of the products of those businesses, in turn further lowering the cost of living for the workers who buy those products, who could then get by with lower incomes, etc. All by just removing the parasitic drain of capital-owners charging usury.