Not really.

Some countries have wealth tax. Some countries don't.

It's sensible to park your money somewhere, where it's not taxed.

If you build more of it, yes, you will meet some of the housing demand (basically just for the richest), but housing is competing with rich people saving.

You need to tax unproductive behavior to rid of it.

If housing values become stagnant or gradually falling, fewer people will use it as a store of value.

Edit: or even if there is a prospect of this being the case.

Jurisdictions in China have started taxing investment properties on a sliding scale that ramps up a lot the more properties you own.

They have also put heavy restrictions on bank lending.

Basically they are desperately trying to slow/reverse responsibly an out of control housing bubble.

That said they have unique cultural and geographical issues in terms of the sheer scale of their urbanisation

The obvious solution is to make renting out properties illegal.

Assuming we went this route, housing prices would obviously fall in spectacular fashion. What do you suggest is done with the houses already rented out, does the government buy them from the owners? If so is it at a fair market pre-announcement rate or at a rate that causes losses to the owners, if for a loss what happens to the economy when those losses hit? What happens to the banks that own those mortgages? In addition why would you not now have massive amounts of empty housing as banks refuse to lend to unqualified buyers?

In addition, how do you account for the massive drop in new development that occurs as much fewer new houses are built as the housing prices are being deflated due to investment being banned? What about apartment buildings?

All genuine questions I would be interested in hearing a solution too?