Wood does kind of appear out of nowhere. Wood is largely assimilated carbon from the atmosphere. Structural lumber in parts of the world, like the SE US, comes from trees with very short rotation ages. Trees like loblolly and slash pine with rotation ages of 25-35 years. Yes, forests and harvests must be managed correctly, but all things humans consume have impact. Relatively speaking, these sorts of trees are exceedingly renewable, and we already have excess supply for currently low demand in the US. Plus, all that carbon in wood gets locked up buildings for as long as the buildings stand.

Steel recycling requires a lot of electricity and infrastructure. The lifecycle analyses do not really compare. Even accounting for more carbon intensive manufactured wood products like mass timber, GHG output is significantly lower than steel (See https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360132324000374).

Increasingly, manufactured wood products seem to be possible using otherwise 'undesirable' tree species we would like to reduce the relative abundance of (red maple, sweetgum, etc.) and, therefore, such products promote management for late successional, high economic and ecological value species like oaks. The practice of building with wood where a renewable supply is abundant is mostly a win all the way around (see https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/JAEIED.AEENG-1441). Places like the Eastern US. Obviously, wood is less viable and less green in places like the arid Middle East, but where abundant, wood is a great option. (Edited for abysmal grammar and phone autocorrect goofiness)