Wood used in building houses is relatively low cost to transport and expands from shipping volume by a factor of 12 or more (a stack of 24 2x4 8' studs that is about 36 inches tall can be used to build a wall about 32 feet long 8' tall, not counting the footers and headers.
A stone or brick wall requires exactly the volume of the wall to be shipped in and the stone and brick are much heavier than wood. In many parts of the USA, stone is not easily available (most of the midwest).
Because it is more safe than stone in the event there is an earthquake. There is more reinforcement with wood.
Example have you watched the news reports about how many people died in the middle east after an earthquake hit? Thousands compared to America and other nations who use wood instead.
if there is an earthquake stone and brick no reenforced would collapse the structure easily
wood can resist a bit more, im not sure which is cheaper but id have to say wood cause in many poor countires they use brick and stone
http://www.dfwonline.org/userdata/userfi...
Because wood is cheaper and more easily obtained than stone or brick.
Wooden houses are usually covered with shingles.
bricks like most countries
