The answer is not a spectacular crash that leaves homeowners nursing losses, builders abandoning projects and lenders tightening their belts. Nor is it another boom that sends prices soaring beyond the reach of an entire generation.
What we need is something far less exciting, but much more useful: stability.
House prices rising slowly, and for a period growing more slowly than wages, would give younger buyers a chance to catch up without wiping out the savings and security of older generations. It would allow buyers to plan, builders to build and lenders to lend.
That may not make for a thrilling headline. But it is a far better prospect than a housing market in freefall.
I understand why young people are frustrated. For many, home ownership feels like a moving target, with every year of saving bringing them no closer to a deposit large enough to get them through the door.
But be careful what you wish for.
A crash might bring down the asking price of the house you want. It could also make the mortgage harder to secure, the choice of homes smaller and the wider economy more uncertain.
The real prize is not cheaper houses at any cost. It is a housing market in which young people can afford to buy without everyone else paying the price.
Because when the housing market crashes, the pain rarely stays with the people who own the houses.
Usually, we all pay.