Concrete-based construction is popular because it is easy, fast and cheap, but the hidden costs are the massive associated emissions.
Timber by contrast is harder to work with, but locks the carbon into the building, which hopefully will remain standing for many decades.
Also if your goal is just to reduce carbon in the atmosphere you literally DO chop down trees and make sure they don't rot (timber into lumber and plywood) and the you can bury them under a sarcophagus or something.
In short, if your utility is building vs removing carbon from the atmosphere, you choose what to do.
Why don't people do this on a planet wide scale?????? What is the downside? Seems it would be an amazing natural carbon sink. What are the downsides and obstacles?
If private companies planted trees they could monetize all that timber also!!