And 1893, and a bunch of other times. But that might also be called the "business cycle". This nice tame business cycle that we've come to take for granted is created by the Fed; the sans-Fed business cycle was incredibly vicious.
(What is hard to know is how much laundered money props up real estate in London, NYC, Miami, etc., and if we crack down on laundering, whether it will pop the bubble. Adam Davidson and Seth Hettena have written well on how we got here and why it will be difficult to unroll.)
The business cycle of boom and bust is characteristic of capitalism as a system, and if anything, the elastic monetary policy that the Federal Reserve allows has softened the blows.
In a nutshell, it is now believed by several researchers to have been a very narrow phenomenon with minimal impact to the national economy. Per Wikipedia
"While Mackay's account held that a wide array of society was involved in the tulip trade, Goldgar's study of archived contracts found that even at its peak the trade in tulips was conducted almost exclusively by merchants and skilled craftsmen who were wealthy, but not members of the nobility.[44] Any economic fallout from the bubble was very limited."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania#Modern_views
Taken at face value, this suggests that the tulip "bubble" was dramatically different from either the dotcom or the mortgage bubble, which had wide ranging participation and damage. One could argue that the latter two would have been impossible without the Fed.
But bubbles continued. I wonder if one can make a case that pre-FED bubbles were notably smaller than post-FED bubbles, factoring in the fact that the nature of modern economies may magnify bubbles. In other words, if there is a continuous upward slope to the size of bubbles from the 1600's up to now, then it would appear FED made no significant difference. But if there is a spike or jump when FED formed, it could mean they magnify them.