If that were true, wooden buildings would be more expensive to insure against fire damage than non-wooden ones. Turns out, a (properly designed and built) predominantly wooden building can get the same or (even better, depending on what it is compared against) ratings.

EDIT: adjusted wording to clarify re "wood framed"

they cost the same? https://www.google.com/search?q=fire+insurance+wooden+vs+con...

That's at least figures family friends got for their buildings, not sure about the details. One thing I notice is that the top search results are about "wooden framed" - the house in question was predominantly wooden and thus more massive wood construction than just wood framing is.

If I think about it, I suspect this might not apply to larger buildings like those discussed in the article, (unless fixing partially damaged structures is easier? Don't know how the internal details work)

This article isn't talking about what American's (and Australians, and Canadians, and Brits) consider 'wood buildings'. Apples and oranges.

It's still wood, granted full of glues and chemicals.