NO , cob house were comparatively cheap.
there walls are alot thiner than modern houses
It does seem to depend on what kind of house you're looking for, but houses in Solihull are at least double the price of the cost of houses in other towns.
because old houses can collapse easier
Mud houses are more cooler than concrete houses because they absorb more heat and evaporate quickly than concrete houses
I checked out some listings for houses and apartments in NYC, and it looks like the houses do rent for a bit (~10%) more per square foot than apartments. I don't know if that holds nationwide, though.
Cars produce much more than houses.
the builders could build more houses which create more jobs and more wages, and more business for housing agencies. Supply of houses will go up, than the cost would go down as people will choose the house with the lower price which is suitable due to the credit crunch.
Apartments are more plentiful. Some areas houses are more available.
there were more than a million
The average square footage of a colonial house was much smaller than modern day houses. Many of these colonial houses were less than 300 square feet.
The cost of any house is highly dependent on its location and what materials are used to build it. There are other considerations of course but these are the two primary factors. For example small houses in San Francisco are many times more expensive than small houses in rural areas of Oklahoma even when assuming the materials used are the same. Homes made of brick are more expensive than homes made of wood.
The values of houses in NY depends on where the house is located. A house in a rural town in upstate NY will cost much less than a house in NYC. Look at local listings and see what others spend on houses.