The notion that markets price accurately seems poorly supported on evidence.

In the case of housing:

- A chief cost of labour is itself housing, largely in the form of rents (in the economic sense), most especially of land and fiancing (interest), though also through the burdon of zoning and construction codes which further limit supply and flexibility. I'm not a fan of eliminating all regulation by any means, but there's a distinct difference between effective and ineffective or burdensome regulation. Note that the usual deregulation argument of "just let the market sort it out" is what I'm attacking principally in this comment.

- Natural resource pricing in particular is exceptionally inaccurate. The entire concept of "nonrenewable resources" is equivalent to "the market price supports use at rates greater than those of formation". This applies across numerous raw resources, from timber to topsoil, but most especially to fossil fuels which are consumed at a rate 5 million times that of their formation. That's equivalent to saying that the incorporated time cost is too low by a factor of millions.

- Negative externalities such as pollution, and climate change is a form of pollution, are also under-priced. This is usually seen in terms of direct energy use of housing and commercial space, but it's also present in indirect energy usage, most especially transportation. Denser and more energy-efficient designs would greatly reduce total energy use without reducing quality of life (a/k/a "economic utility").

Traditionally, construction relied heavily on locally-sourced materials. The catacombs of Paris and Rome (amongst other cities) were created in the process of quarrying stone for use in construction of the buildings above. Stone, adobe, half-timbered construction, and similar designs all incorporate locally-accessible and abundant materials, or where nonabundant materials (especially timber) are used, rely on cheaper infill materials outside structural members.

Yes, modern construction affords greater hazard protections (major cities don't regularly burn down or collapse entirely in earthquakes or hurricanes), but often through methods that while economically feasible given the market distortions I'm describing here, are not especially ecologically viable.

Another element of traditional construction that's somewhat poorly appreciated is that buildings were often little more than structural shells. Beginning around 1875, structures themselves began to be networked, not only with streets as they'd long been, but with utilities: water, gas, sewerage, electricity, telephone, cable, and more recently Internet service. Of these, water is probably one of the most destructive long-term, as introducing indoor plumbing creates humidity and moisture issues which can degrade the most robust of structures rapidly if poorly controlled. Fire is more immediately destructive, yes, but water acts over time.

The question is one of balancing one-time construction with ongoing maintenance and repair costs. Modern housing can last a century or more, which is a pretty good return. There are cultures which practice more frequent rebuilding (notably Japan). What happens long term, and whether or not humanity proceeds on a high-tech or lower-technology path isn't clear. Whichever course lies ahead, structure and landscape are likely to see major changes.