Why do they seem like the better choice across the board?

Cheaper, faster to build, better insulative properties, easier to modify. As I understand, brick is more durable, but I dont think Europe gets much hurricanes or Tornadoes...

I mean.. Europe has houses still standing that are hundreds of years old. Quality over speed my friend

That seems like an excessively long time. Wood frame houses last 100 years as well, and that is more than a reasonable amount of time.

I'd rather make something that lasts then something easy. Passing down a property is an excellent source of generational wealth. Better to have inherited a sturdy 170 year old home made of brick or stone then a house falling to pieces at 80 years. Plus it's better for the environment to not have rebuild new homes.

It’s really not a reasonable amount of time. A house should last many generations and be fully repairable/maintainable outside of pretty extreme acts of God.

Wood housing is more susceptible to mould and pest issues than brick, and if you live where there are termites, the eco-cost of ongoing treatment has to be added to the normal cost. It can be extremely toxic. If you live where rain is frequent, brick lasts much longer.

When considering natural disaster, flexible wood frames are excellent for areas that are earthquake prone, less so for fire. In some parts of the world, the cost associated with using a fire resistant external wood is just too high. Ironbark is fire resistant, but very expensive and difficult to shape. Insurance may refuse to cover housing in fire prone areas without specific metal or brick window surrounds.

Generally it's insect and wet damage, however.

Please read this entire message

Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

• ELI5 requires that you search the ELI5 subreddit for your topic before posting. Users will often either find a thread that meets their needs or find that their question might qualify for an exception to rule 7. Please see this wiki entry for more details (Rule 7).

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please use this form and we will review your submission.

Plus, in my opinion at least, brick and stone are more aesthetically pleasing.

Wood homes are not rebuilt though. They also last incredibly long. There are neighbourhoods where I am from filled with 100 year old wood homes. Maybe because we dont have termites here as much?

It's because, generally speaking, there's not as much lumber available in Europe as compared to in North America... historicaly they used the available wood for things like furniture and for heating.

Wood frame buildings are viable because of drywall and fiberglass insulation. Drywall is cheap and essentially hangs from the wood frame, while the fiberglass insulation is lightweight, thin, and a better insulator than pretty much anything else.

Without those two things, you can't build a wood frame building - the entire building needs to be made out of wood then sealed with something like tar, which isn't a particularly good insulator. In a world without drywall or fiberglass insulation, brick is both cheaper than wood and a better insulating material.

Many European buildings date back to a time before drywall and fiberglass insulation existed. Northern and Western Europe, where you tend to see the most brick buildings, also don't suffer from natural disasters like Earthquakes or hurricanes. So even though brick buildings aren't particularly survivable in much of the world, they are survivable in certain parts of Europe.

That being said, new construction using brick more or less does not exist in wealthy countries. The vast, vast majority of "brick" is actually textured vinyl siding. It looks and feels like brick, but its basically just plastic wallpaper that's been glued to whatever is underneath. Where brick is used, its actually reinforced brickwork where a steel skeleton is what's providing structural strength and the brick is basically just decorative.

Brick is really only used as a construction material in very poor countries where the cost of labor is very low. The most expensive part of unreinforced brickwork is that its labor intensive to lay - the brick itself is cheap to make and doesn't require any sort of skilled labor at any point in the brick making/laying process. If the cost of labor in your country is extremely low, then so is the cost of brick construction.

Your answer is way better than mine

That is what a fascade is for....

My house is is 175 years old. It has a stone foundation but wood framing. We've gutted this house and there's tons of rot to the siding, windows, sill beams etc. it was very expensive to fix. But the framing itself is solid- bc they used timber pretty much raw from a tree. They are MASSIVE from natural forest grown trees that were very old which makes the material denser. Code today for modern builds are flimsy by comparison that is generally farm grown from younger trees, so the wood is softer and more porous. I'm a real estate agent have seen modern (1960s and newer) falling apart structurally. Literally.

So yes, houses built from wood 100 years ago are likely very sturdy bc the materials while wood were of much higher quality. BUT a lot of those old wood frame homes are a major fire hazard due to the framing style often popular then (balloon frame used until I think the 1930s.) you probably won't be seeing modern new builds lasting 100 years without significant and expensive maintenance. A stone or brick house generally is a lot more fire resistant so that's an added benefit

The same reason people don’t build wooden ovens.

Fascades look so cheap and tacky though haha. No offense to anyone that has them/likes them. Just my opinion

I'm living in a stone building in Europe that is 300years old friend. If you build a wood house today with the aim of handing down to your children, you're grandchildren are inheriting the problem.

There's an apartment building in the city I live thats from 1308. - Europe (city withheld for anonymity) and it withstood two world wars. So brick and stone is pretty long lasting. 100 years is not long.

Fascades can be made out of real brick, its just thinner.