That is woke bs and you know it. If it ain't 100% roman concrete, it ain't right.
It will be relatively similar to most other major European cities; solid masonry construction has historically been the norm.
You'll find some wooden houses in smaller towns and rural areas, but even there, if you head over to e.g. Poland, most things will be solid masonry. And the wooden construction is mostly relatively new; what you'll rarely find is old wooden construction.
In Sweden, around 80% of standing homes are wooden. 90% of new single-family homes use wood. Gothenburg is the exception, not the rule, thanks to 19th-century zoning laws that limited wooden buildings to two storeys.
The Netherlands is Western Europe, not Northern or Central - basic geography.
Wood dominates residential construction in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Sweden, Finland, and Norway. Denmark is about 50/50. Poland uses more masonry today but has a strong wooden tradition in the south.
You're making sweeping claims about places you clearly haven't spent any real time in. Maybe do some proper research before pretending to be an expert.
What is "very finite" here? Where I grew up there are wood houses/barns/structures made entirely out of wood and still standing/being used after hundreds of years. Is that not enough?
We have concrete buildings going back to Greek and Roman times, mostly standing.
Wooden buildings have a very finite lifespan, and, aside from earthquakes, much less so in a disaster. A wooden city and a steel/brick/concrete city react very differently to firebombing.
Especially with declining populations, it makes sense to build structures to last. The old school brick/concrete/stone/... European buildings from 1500 are largely in good shape, at least where they weren't demolished by war.
Traditional European construction is also much more friendly for heating / cooling. The thermal capacity of stone-based materials helps a lot.
To me, it feels a bit like Germany banning nuclear power plants, and switching to Russian fossil fuels instead...