AIUI, Brick construction is actually less resistant than wood-frame to many kinds of things including -- particularly relevant to California residents -- earthquakes.
Its less resistant to axes, sure, but then that just means that modifications are less expensive -- but its not exactly like hostile attacks by axe against homes are that common.
Admittedly this is much easier in new construction...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timber_framing#German_tradition...
Fortunately there is a sliver of light at the end of this tunnel (article from previous HN post):
http://www.fastcoexist.com/3020237/new-yorks-newest-skyscrap...
Folks in the US do produce real homes, but it's in very small numbers as a pseudo-artisanal thing. http://www.vermontframes.com are pretty neat, for example. The trend in timber framing has been to use structural insulating panels (which are actually pretty good and also, funnily enough, insulate) for infill between the timbers. Technically you can make the entire house out of SIPs, although they're not amazing looking.
Is your 50 years a guesstimate or do you have a source for that?
It is interesting why brick or concrete - preferred materials in other parts of the world, are not so common for residences in the US.
To me wooden houses have a charm that concrete or brick construction does not. Also, I feel that I can fix/update things in a wooden house more easily than in a brick or concrete house because of the drywall construction.
The stuff that goes into most US homes is not wood in that vein, it is the "leftover" wood chips crushed back into wood-like substance and used as walls.
As to your source, there are some here: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-average-lifespan-of-a-US-h...
But you won't in general find many homes built like that beyond 50 years. In places around military bases where at one point in home most houses were built in that style, you notice that most of them aren't around now and the few that are are in really bad shape.
Contrast that with much of Europe where in many places your average house is over 100 years old and are still in great shape. But again brick constructed homes last.
That's not true at all. There are thousands of homes in San Francisco that are over 100 years old (built after the earthquake).
Go to the East Coast and these "crap" homes are even older.
I'm hoping your just on a hyperbole kick because your statements don't really line up with reality.
They try to make up for how poorly the walls are constructed by shoving tons of insulation (mostly hazardous-during-deconstruction fiberglass) but really it is just nothingness. I'm sure with a wood axe I could literally chop my way into someone's bedroom from outside.
In much of Europe both new and old homes are built using brick(!). These homes have already lasted over one hundred years and will likely last at least another fifty or more with normal maintenance (e.g. roof repair, replacing some plumbing, etc).
Most US homes seem to have a lifetime of around 50 years before they get demolished and replaced by identically terrible homes. Except there are a few places in the Eastern US where older homes were built well (e.g. Maine) but newer ones are built like junk.
I'm not surprised they're bringing in building materials from Ireland. I doubt anyone in the US produces real homes anymore.