There are many cases where this isn’t true. Many (most) residents in urban areas are transient. They stay for a couple of years, get married, then move to the suburbs or another city to start a family.
There are a bunch of other reasons why someone wouldn’t want to stay in a location for a long period of time.
Rentals absolutely make sense in this situation.
Without the profit incentive, what developer would build a multi unit apartment building to achieve higher density living in cities?
A developer still has a profit incentive; mostly the same one they have now, actually. They sell the apartments.
I see that you are saying you would simply sell the apartments instead now. What is the solution for (e.g.) new grads who do not have a down payment yet? Why aren't tenants currently pooling their money, purchasing the properties they live at and converting it to a Tenancy in Common?
I do not think prices will drop without a rental market. Prices might even increase because you are making the market much less efficient. It will also make building new units more difficult as there will almost always be a holdout in the building.
Subdividing your land and making it available to others is valuable. The world without that is all single family homes.
So...council estates? Subsidized housing is a thing we have.
>realize that property rentals are a necessary service that is handled pretty well by the private markets and that landlords are no more or less deserving of earning a profit for the service they provide and risk they take on?
Landlords don't create added value. I'm skeptical that it is a necessary service; housing is necessary, but is renting housing necessary? Why would that be?