I think that house size is a metric of convenience because it is archeologically simple. But there are modern examples of societies where house size doesn't cor

I think that house size is a metric of convenience because it is archeologically simple. But there are modern examples of societies where house size doesn't correlate with wealth and wealth was stored in other kinds of assets, material or immaterial. E.g. in the communist eastern block, living quarters were quite standardized, and while the very highest levels of society had special arrangements, a professor might have lived in the same quarters as a factory worker. The differences were in the "job extras" such as personal drivers and cars, travel permits, spots on the waiting list for goods and services and social prestige that translated to influence. Certain early modern European societies, especially protestant ones, also frowned upon overt displays of wealth through bigger and more ostentatious housing. However, that might be detectable archeologically when using build quality as a metric. Cities like Amsterdam also had very peculiar systems of allotting and taxing building spaces, thereby leading to the well-known equal-sized and narrow houses.