NO. Landowners are bad. including homeowners. and also banks (banks effectively own land from issuing mortgages).

But, in an ideal world, probably most people would rent from a "building owner", yes. (because all land rent would be paid directly to the government and any excess after basic functions like public infrastructure and military spending paid out as ubi) (practically speaking, you would have to still have some private land wealth at least at first so you could get a market price for land rent).

In fact, our current system is basically feudalism. Barons (banks&boomer homeowners), guilds (american medical assocation, the bar association, professors&peer review), and serfs (amazon workers). Combined with fascism (federal bureaucracies and public schools and public/private parternships like microsoft, amazon, and lockheed martin).

this all works okay, but it could be a lot better. but if you just totally socialize the corporations idk how you can predict anything but catastrophe. whoever is in charge of distributing the wealth will take their cut and give it out in such a way it will only misalign incentives. incentives are obviously really important.