Calling houses a durable consumer good is too one-dimensional. If I have a laundromat with 20 washing machines, that's far more useful located in NYC than in the middle of Kansas since there's far more people around to utilize the machines.
A huge part of the context of a house (and its value) is what it's located around.
Buying a house with the expectation of it doing anything other than housing you reliably as long as you maintain it is just a bad decision.
A huge part of what a house is located around is predicated on zoning laws that can change at any time.
A huge part of the business of booming areas is predicated on large business in the area. For instance: being an Amazon employee and living in Seattle makes buying a house unappealing. As far as 'investments' go, housing is not a stable proposition, doesn't help diversify against risk for the average use case, and doesn't promote tangible economic benefits that support its own appreciation.
Regardless -- durable goods are often more valuable in certain situations. That doesn't make it an investment to keep one that's more valuable and hold it.
If you're going to invest, at least treat it like a poor speculative investment
A huge part of the context of a house (and its value) is what it's located around.