In my opinion we’ve got into a cycle where we’re continually upping the quality and excessively reducing risk which means houses must be at a premium price (and must be bigger) which means the insurance and financial devastation if things go wrong drive ever more compliance and risk removal. From a house being a basic need to requiring earthquake, fire, structural, weathertight zero risk bunkers.
What would happen if we went the other way and made houses cheaper basic boxes with lowers standards that could be mass produced while accepting we will lose a few to fire, earthquake, etc. Ie a house costs under $1000pm to build instead of $3000pm+ means we can afford to lose 2/3 and still be ahead. Dont care if they fall apart. The mindset to replace them every 10-20 years like a car.
We can lose some houses to fire, earthquakes, storms, leaks and still be ahead of houses are replaceable and disposable. Big exaggeration but you get the idea.
Our treatment of houses as needing to be premium products, last forever, totally safe, bespoke, etc has driven up cost which in turn drives up the need for a spiral of regulations, over engineering, over design, over product testing, etc because they are so expensive and irreplaceable.
We have to much of an emotional attachment to houses rather than treating them as a tool to house people.