I think it's fair to say that right now, mainstream economists don't appear to have anything they agree does work either.
It's useful to know something doesn't work like a proponent would hope, but I don't think it's all that helpful if everything else the economists propose as an alternative, including the status quo, doesn't work either.
If the economists can't find a solution, perhaps it has to fall back to moral imperatives and which values to prioritise. Specifically, which is more important, letting people who have lived somewhere much of their lives stay there, or forcing them out into unfamiliar places with no connections so that new, wealthier people can take their place.
It's hard to expect economists (or anyone really) to be able to fix what is essentially political gridlock and innefective governance.
The answer is to build more to outpace demand but that's very difficult for so many reasons including zoning, factions opposed to growth, difficulty scaling supporting infrastructure and services, etc and we're left discussing bandaids to be applied on top of the crusty remains of hundreds of old bandaids covering up the festering wound, so to speak
We know what works - building more. To my knowledge, this has only been politically acceptable after a natural disaster like an earthquake which makes a lot of homes unlivable.
It's useful to know something doesn't work like a proponent would hope, but I don't think it's all that helpful if everything else the economists propose as an alternative, including the status quo, doesn't work either.
If the economists can't find a solution, perhaps it has to fall back to moral imperatives and which values to prioritise. Specifically, which is more important, letting people who have lived somewhere much of their lives stay there, or forcing them out into unfamiliar places with no connections so that new, wealthier people can take their place.