I don't disagree with this, but it's more complicated than just that the purchase price needs to come down. If the purchase price was far higher than the cost of building new homes (including land, site prep, utilities, infrastructure, etc.), then we could just build a ton of new housing stock. In many parts of the country, the purchase price of a home is lower than the all in cost of replacement.
I just asked chatGPT about the net increase in the housing stock, and it's currently running 1-1.3 million a year (if chatGPT is to be trusted, and I thought I'd rather take the easy way out rather than dig through Fred) on a housing stock of about 150 million. So well below 1% net increase in the housing stock. I also asked ChatGPT what the population increase has looked like since Trump took office the second time (at which point it slowed down for obvious reasons), and that's supposedly averaged around 0.4%.
Another factor, is that single member or single parent households have been exploding over the last several decades, so unless that demographic changes, there are more homes needed per person.
Why would the purchase price come down (barring financial or real estate crisis) if there's a structural shortage of homes, we aren't building them fast enough, and the price of building a home is equal to or higher than buying one? To me, it seems like the most likely scenario is that housing/rent continues to eat up a larger share of budgets than it did in the past.