I’ve thought about innovative processes like this for decades, and done some research into the issues. As I see it, the technological potential is tremendous, however…
The real stumbling block here is the tiny scale of construction regulation, with its close links to local politics. This, in turn, makes disruption very unpopular with the existing construction businesses, with their leverage based on local employment, social ties with local bureaucrats, and position in the local tax base.
AFAIK a large amount of construction regulation takes place at the level of local communities. There’s an existing community of regulators, businesses, and laborers who are already familiar with existing methods, and will gang up against radical and/or disruptive innovation that they don’t understand.
What they do understand is the threat it represents to them. Safety regulators and inspectors would have to learn a whole new set of standards, with little or no local experience to guide them. Construction businesses would have to design a whole new set of internal processes around the new methods and materials, which is a very different challenge than keeping an existing system running smoothly.
Financially, mortgage lenders would have to develop new, therefore untried, standards for valuation, and secondary market investors would probably expect much higher returns to pay for their higher (perceived) risks. This translates to much higher mortgage interest rates.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m 110% in favor of this sort of innovation. But we can’t ignore the downsides, or the widespread reactions which would mostly be in opposition.