Your first link is not talking about housing, it's talking about offices. That's apples and oranges.
Your second link is from a company in the business of making eco-friendly homes, which is obviously not what 99.9999% of average people purchase.
Your third link talks about how carbon is stored for the lifespan of the building. What do you think lasts longer, on average? A tower in the middle of a dense city or a home in the middle of suburbia?
Either way, what you're missing here is that by comparing business structures to housing structures, you're looking ONLY at the buildings themselves, which is a good way to miss about 80% of the ways we pollute.
Here is a link that breaks down why suburban housing is so shitty. tl;dr when you have to drive 15 miles to get groceries, you have a 30 minute commute and no easily-accessed public transportation, and every weekend has you driving into the city to do stuff, suburban homes suck. It takes less energy to take an elevator or some stairs down to the ground floor.
This is the same boomer reasoning we see about how "ELECTRIC CARS ARE AKSCHUALLY REALLY BAD" because they have high initial pollution levels, even though it very quickly becomes more environmentally friendly.