Construction costs are currently skyrocketing

Yeah, industrial land consumption in arable farming does feed the population, albeit at the expense of nature with conventional farming. The land consumption for single-family houses with maximum exploitation and overexploitation of the floor area ratio only serves the needs of the builders. The added value of double garages and outdoor kitchen chillout lounge zones is rather low if you look beyond your own grill plate.

Where we now start arguing with straw men. A single-family house is not automatically a double garage, and an outdoor kitchen may be part of good tone in a multimillion project. That is far from the standard. I also personally do not know anyone whose outdoor kitchen goes beyond a grill.
Yes, agriculture feeds the population. But the proportion of agricultural land actually used for food production is far from 100%. Here in our country, we massively cultivate rapeseed and co in monocultures to burn it in so-called biogas plants or forcibly blend it as biofuel. That is one of the most successful label deceptions I know. The only thing organic about it is the biomass, certainly not the cultivation. If we were to give that up—or even just stop promoting it—then any discussion about land consumption by single-family houses would be unnecessary. By the way, those giant houses filling the plots could simply be curbed by a lower floor area ratio.
And residential construction can also be wasteful with space. I once posted a satellite image of my residential complex pages and pages ago. The courtyard alone is 5,000 sqm of dead space. No child plays there, no person stays longer than necessary to walk through. It is, of course, designed in a classic way with a grass area and a few token boxwoods trimmed into shapes.

While we are now starting to argue with straw men. A single-family home is not automatically a double garage, and an outdoor kitchen may belong to good taste in a multimillion-dollar project. It is far from standard. I also personally don’t know anyone whose outdoor kitchen goes beyond a grill. Yes, agriculture feeds the population. But the proportion of agricultural land actually used for food production is very far from 100%. Here in this country, we massively cultivate rapeseed and the like in monocultures to burn it in so-called biogas plants or to forcibly blend it as biofuel. This is one of the most successful misrepresentations I know. The only bio thing about it is the biomass, certainly not the cultivation. If we were to give this up—or even just stop promoting it further—then any discussion about the land consumption of single-family homes would be superfluous. By the way, those gigantic houses filling entire plots could easily be curbed by a lower floor area ratio. And residential construction can also be wasteful with space. I once posted a satellite image of my residential complex many hundreds of pages ago. The courtyard alone is 5,000 sqm of dead space. No child plays there, no person stays longer than necessary to pass through. It is, of course, laid out in a very classic way with a lawn and a few token boxwood shrubs clipped into shapes.

Worldwide, about 70 to 80% of arable land is used to grow animal feed, meaning if we halved our consumption of animal products, about 30% of arable land could be rewilded or the destruction of the rainforest could be stopped. The rainforest is primarily cleared so that soy can be grown for our steaks, chops, and chicken.

Worldwide, about 70 to 80% of arable land is used for growing animal feed, i.e. if we halved our consumption of animal products, about 30% of arable land could be renaturalized or the destruction of the rainforest could be stopped. It is primarily cleared so that soy can be grown for our steaks, chops, and chicken.

Unfortunately, this is complete nonsense that one can only believe if one has no knowledge of agriculture and trusts the current media.
I recommend 'Moderner Landwirt' on YouTube. There you can really get insights into German agricultural production and current problems.

Nevertheless, 1 kg of meat produces more CO2 than 1 kg of soy.

Regardless, this has very little to do with building materials; soon one could also philosophize about textile production in Bangladesh.

PS: I originally came 'from the farm.'
And maybe in the future, regionally produced food will once again have a higher value among the general public.
However, since it is more expensive than at discount stores – rather unlikely.

For that, my butcher, my flour, and my milk have not become more expensive yet.

Worldwide, about 70 to 80% of arable land is used for growing animal feed, i.e. if we halved our consumption of animal products, about 30% of arable land could be renatured or the destruction of the rainforest could be stopped. The rainforest is mainly cut down so that soy can be grown for our steaks, chops, and chicken.

You probably meant agriculturally used land and not arable land!

3.2 billion hectares worldwide are extensively used pastures and meadows, 1.2 billion hectares are intensively used arable land.

Arable land yields significantly more than pasture – so if it were possible, one would much rather use these areas as arable land. It would be stupid not to!

But this almost never works because pastures are used precisely because they are not suitable as arable land: too dry, too rocky, too mountainous, etc.

Therefore, these areas are either used for extensive livestock farming or they remain wasteland, wilderness, nature... tertium (arable crops) non datur!

Unfortunately, this is complete nonsense that can only be believed if one has no knowledge in the agricultural sector and trusts the current media.
I recommend 'Moderner Landwirt' on YouTube. There you can really get insights into German agricultural production and current problems.

Nevertheless, 1 kg of meat produces more CO2 than 1 kg of soy.

He also ignores a few minor details:
1. Many areas can only be reasonably used with livestock farming. Whether because the land is too steep or fragmented for mechanical cultivation or simply because not much grows there except grass.
2. All the meat substitute products are also incredibly wasteful in production. Producing milk without a cow from oats is not fundamentally better than with a cow. The same applies to lab-grown meat. Protein has to come from somewhere, and livestock is a very efficient way to produce protein from poorly usable plants.
3. Livestock used to be part of a circular economy and still is to a large extent despite artificial fertilizers. Simply removing livestock because it sounds good in statistics just doesn’t work.
4. Pastures are quite species-rich for cultivated land. Renaturation in the naive sense of "doing nothing for 100 years" merely leads to mixed forest everywhere. What we consider "nature" today is almost everywhere actually a cultural landscape.
5. The deforestation of the rainforest could be countered more effectively by, for example, imposing tariffs on such soy. This doesn’t require forcing everyone into veganism or fundamentally banning new construction areas. And as long as we still spend a lot of money growing crops on fields that are not even indirectly intended for consumption, I simply do not accept the blanket argument about land consumption.

PS: A vegan diet also has an incredible footprint. The amount of bananas, avocados, and similar products consumed that absolutely do not grow here...