CLT is not inherently more expensive and the cost difference is typically less dramatic. Steel just has a few centuries of a head start on learning curves, economies of scale, etc. Scaling up usage of CLT would bring down cost just like it has with steel.
The biggest issue actually is that there's a lot of resistance in the construction industry that is simply locked into using steel and concrete and more or less blind to the advantages of wood. Switching materials would mean new tools, new skills, etc. are needed. I have a friend who is active in Germany pushing the use of this material and he talks a lot with companies in this space.
Companies seem to default to doing what they've been doing for a long time without considering alternatives. Many construction projects are actually still one-off projects that don't leverage economies of scale or learnings from previous construction projects. Construction could be a lot cheaper and much less labor intensive than it is today.
CLT could actually make on-site assembly a lot simpler and faster than it is today. Ship pre-fab components created in large scale facilities optimized to manufacture those cost effectively. Assemble on site using simple tools and processes.
I don't work in the industry, but from my admittedly very consumer-oriented perspective that wanted to build a house for a while:
The reason why economics of scale never really made sense in this context was that shipping the prefab components to the building site mostly wiped out the savings.
Ignoring the actual shipping cost (which is substantial for heavy things that get assembled into a house), it also comes with the risk of things getting damaged while en-route etc. another reason is the fact that places in reality very rarely are actually the same. They can do best effort, but things will likely still vary a little. That's another error scenario wiping out a good chunk of the savings, which fundamentally doesn't exist of you just build on-site.
I'm not knowledgeable on this new material to judge wherever this could potentially change this status-quo, but I wouldn't hold my breath either.
I think the concerns you raise aren't actually show stoppers for a lot of prefab housing that has been happening for decades.
Wood is a lot lighter than steel and concrete. And that has to be transported as well. So you'd have less cost there, not more. About 50% weight savings. That's a lot of diesel.
As for parts getting damaged. That's what insurance an warranty are for. I don't think that's a show stopper issue.
And there are advantages to producing prefab components in a facility that is optimal for that and climate controlled that has all the right tools, specialists, equipment etc. Also, pooring concrete in the winter is problematic. Water freezes. And it expands when it does so. Working with steel is a PITA when it freezes as well. It conducts heat very well. Construction sites aren't very active in the winter in those places that have them for this reason. Prefab wood components don't have a lot of these issues. You can still work wood when it freezes. And bang in some nails. Or drill holes.
It isn't a show stopper, but it is why site built it competitive with prefab unless (as is all too common) prefab cuts corners. Prefab because it needs to ship on current roads often has size limitations of the modules that limit how you can arrange your house.
It’s not just construction company resistance to change.
The regulatory landscape around home building is intense. Especially for fire code. You basically have an entire industry of inspectors whose job is to fail things that don’t match any known pattern, so getting new patterns established is quite difficult.
There is likely also some resistance to it in the home insurance space where they are incredibly data driven, so until you have data built up to justify the statistically supported lower prices of stone houses, the insurance companies will keep premiums higher resulting in non standard materials being limited to the wealthy or fanatics willing to eat the cost.
The biggest issue actually is that there's a lot of resistance in the construction industry that is simply locked into using steel and concrete and more or less blind to the advantages of wood. Switching materials would mean new tools, new skills, etc. are needed. I have a friend who is active in Germany pushing the use of this material and he talks a lot with companies in this space.
Companies seem to default to doing what they've been doing for a long time without considering alternatives. Many construction projects are actually still one-off projects that don't leverage economies of scale or learnings from previous construction projects. Construction could be a lot cheaper and much less labor intensive than it is today.
CLT could actually make on-site assembly a lot simpler and faster than it is today. Ship pre-fab components created in large scale facilities optimized to manufacture those cost effectively. Assemble on site using simple tools and processes.