The only hope, in my opinion, is a giant, propaganda-driven cultural movement away from money and towards societal stability.
Property developers are allowed to keep ownership of new developments (so-called "build-to-rent"), or sell the new development (on a single title) to an investment trust. But corporations buying pre-existing house stock, without plans to redevelop it, are at a tax disadvantage compared to individual owners.
I don't think corporations are quite as powerful as you think. Certainly not in Australia. At the end of the day, individuals vote, corporations can't. Governments win elections by appealing to voters, not appealing to corporations. Indeed, almost all of the negative aspects of Australia's housing policies have come about through appealing to individual voters–the older generations who own a lot of property, the "aspirational middle class" who want to own a lot of property too, the "Mum & Dad investors", the professional class (property investment is popular with doctors and lawyers and I believe even software engineers), the small business owner class, etc–rather than being driven by corporate interests.
For these reasons, a lot of us younger generation folks actually value a high-quality rental property more than buying exactly that same house. [Yes, sure, you buy the house and you'll eventually pay it off, but you'd be surprised how many people don't believe they will be able to afford to retire at all, much less accumulate any wealth whatsoever.]
It can change when (and if) you have kids.
Uprooting our kids to move somewhere else is going to be a burden on them. I experienced that burden as a child, I don’t want to visit it on my own children unless it is (in other ways) a really compelling proposition. Especially as parent of a child with a neurodevelopmental disorder, who I know would find the disruption harder than the average child would
By being tied up in property the timing of this is hardly ideal though. The costs in housing was paid when I was young, the transfer back will be after my mortgage is paid off and my main use of this transfer will be to fund my retirement. In turn I'll be relying on these investments to fund retirement and if I live long enough the next generation won't get any of my wealth until they're older and don't need it so much.
What would be a better way (other than cash) to transfer some of this wealth when the next generation is younger and need it more?
Some parents give guarantees to their children's mortgages, or buy property jointly with their children. I think it comes down to a couple of factors (1) the wealthier you are, and the fewer children you have, the more sustainable this is; (2) cultural attitudes differ between different families (and between cultural/ethnic groups) in terms of whether parents ought to do this, or instead leave their adult children to fend for themselves.
However I do feel like we are transitioning from a society in which each generation was expected to make it mostly on their own (with at best a little bit of help from their parents), to one with a much greater emphasis on inherited wealth. I think as well as property bubbles, another factor is shrinking family sizes. When the average family had 5+ kids, the children couldn't expect to inherit that much. Families with only 1 or 2 kids, the child can inherit a lot more. And even prior to inheritance, it is much easier to extend financial support to your children (such as helping them to buy a home in their 20s) when you only have 1 or 2 instead of 4, 5, 6, 7...