Why are there fewer old (>500 years) stone buildings/structures in China than Europe or the Middle East?

When reading up on the subject it seems that the point that gets brought up most often is that it was simply more economical to use wood rather than stone and although I'm sure this analysis is correct I can't help but feel that there are some things about this that still don't make sense-- for instance; why would the Chinese be more concerned with what is practical and economical than Europeans and Middle Easterners? Although wood was obviously plentiful, some histories I've read indicate that it was in fact the rampant, pervasive deforestation during the peak of many Chinese dynasties that would lead directly to the dynasty's downfall. One book indicated that the deforestation resulted in soil erosion during the later part of these dynasties which created a positive feedback when the dynasty struggled to harvest a greater and greater percentage of the slowly diminishing supply of lumber to meet the demand thereby causing greater and greater soil erosion in the process. So if wood was sometimes extremely scarce due to the high demand (as some historians have written) was it really all that practical or economical? If I'm missing a major important reason please let me know.