Brick veneer is comparatively robust and maintenance free. You don’t have to paint, patch, repair for the life of the building. And, in my experience, siding needs to be washed like windows do, otherwise it looks dirty.
In Italy, most of the garage and parking area is underneath the house. The driveway leads underground, similar to a parking garage. In Germany it seems to be more common to have the garage off to the side of the house. But they are tiny. The garages and parking spaces are tiny! The reason American garages look so obtrusive to foreigners is probably because they’re just not used to seeing a double or triple car garage. The tiny sheds that pass for a garage here in Germany are hardly noticeable, even though they’re located in front of or to the side of the house, just like the US. Its not the design, its the size.
Neither brittle nor hard to insulate 
The bricks themselves are part of the insulation (it’s one of the two key differences between brick and adobe, or at least between ladrillo and adobe); the exterior walls are always double, with the air pocket providing additional insulation. It’s like having double-glazed windows, but the whole wall is like that.
LOL. Silly Europeans putting cars in their garages. Don’t they know that’s where you’re supposed to store all your grody old furniture, thrice-used boat, and half-broken BBQs?
Brick are manifestly not part of any insulation system. They transmit heat like the dickens. Common clay brick have an R-value of 0.2 per inch. By comparison, fiberglass insulation has an R-value of about 3.0 per inch. A 2x6 stud wall on 24-inch centers with 5¼-inch deep cavities correctly filled with fiber bats will result in an R-value of around R15; the equivalent thickness of bricks would barely be above an R1 and significantly more expensive to build. And mortar is super shitty for air-sealing. Put something better like spray-foam in those stud cavities and the R-value is even better.
For reference, the minimum R-values for exterior walls in the cold parts of the US (climate zones 5+) is 20. In the really cold parts it’s higher.
Brick can not do this without a significant layer of insulating material such as solid foam between the brick and the sheathing. Air barriers in masonry structures are more for drainage and damp proofing than they are for preventing heat transfer. Air itself is not a terrific insulator, though it’s better than nothing.
What Elche earthquake are you referring to? I tried Googling it, but what’s coming up is a 3.3 or 4.0. I assume you are not making pronouncements based on unreinforced masonry not failing during a relatively minor earthquake like that.
The Cascadia subduction zone in the Pacific NW is “due” for a magnitude 9.0 earthquake. Unreinforced masonry buildings, no matter how well constructed, are expected to collapse. Many wood frame houses are expected to survive, and if they are seismically upgraded by simply bolting them to the foundation, they will do even better.
On the other hand, concrete block with stucco is a common construction in Florida. It makes more sense than wood construction there for a number of reasons. I would choose a recently built Florida house to ride out a hurricane in. I would pick either an older or a very new (built under newer seismic codes) wood frame house to ride out a major earthquake (to me, >6.0) on the West coast.
There can be shoddy construction in the US, but it probably varies enormously by specific jurisdiction. As was mentioned, building codes are local, and enforcement is also local. I have no trouble believing that there is not as much shoddy construction in Europe and elsewhere. But it does not really make sense to judge general construction types, like wood frame construction, as being inferior without regard to location and expected hazards.
No, on unreinforced masonry not falling during the many 5.Xs we have every year. 6s are thankfully rare (one every few years), but 4s and 5s are routine and the one time the whole country went “OMGGGGGGG!!! A falling tile killed someone in an earthquake!!!” it was from a building which was already known to be falling down. The way some of the Americans in this thread talk about brick, you wonder how did anybody ever manage to have a brick house anywhere between Mesopotamia and Portugal, both included.
The biggest issue is that only tiny European cars can fit in these things. I couldn’t use my garage in Italy because my 300C was too big to maneuver underground and squeeze into it. I kept my motorcycle down there, and–in true American fashion–old unused furniture and half-broken BBQ (lol). Right now I have a single-car garage in Germany. But it’s tiny. My Dodge Hellcat will not fit. Hell, my wife’s Audi A3 barely fits and we have to be careful opening the doors. If they open all the way, they’ll hit the walls.
Not merely a US phenomenon. I just clicked on the first new housing development I could find in my area - small plots of land, not very big houses, but pretty bloody huge double garages dominating the front of the houses! (And not a brick in sight, either).
Those houses with the garage sticking out in front are called ‘snout’ houses here. After a couple of subdivisions filled with the things, municipalities basically stopped giving permits for such designs. Most people seem to find them unattractive. Even if you don’t mind the house, the streetscape seems unattractive, all lined up in a row. Almost soviet looking, especially when new and uniform colour.
I’m not sure that’s the same as the US style. Here’s a photo of the kind of house that I’m referencing in this discussion
https://www.redfin.com/NC/Winston-Salem/Bluffs-at-Hillcrest/The-Vale/home/114044574
Yeah, we have those too, I just clicked on a more unusual design.
It got me thinking. I’ve never had one, but I’ve always liked mid-century Cape Cod stylehomes with dormers. They are very symmetrical and can be scaled up or down, the roof pitch is not scary and there’s no wasted space. (/geek) We are now 70 years from “mid-century” and there are neighborhoods still full of these things in New England. These aren’t the old houses, they’re among the newer ones. Baby Boomer kids grew up in them.
Do we expect them to eventually collapse into rubble, and if so, about what year would that be?
Like the laziest of the 3 little pigs, clearly it’s that Americans are too dumb to build brick houses. /s
I’m not willing to spend a ton of time on research here but according to the census bureau 60% of Americans live in single family detached houses. That compares to, say, 23 or 25% respectively for Germany and the UK. That comes down to preference and availability, of course, but suffice it to say that Americans by and large want to live in their own building, and we have the space to do so, but – for 60 million families to all have their own building somewhere requires some sacrifices to be made. That’s, like, a lot of buildings.
Whether or not it’s wise for Americans to sprawl out into an endless suburbia just so everyone who wants one can have their own cheaply built single-family house is another issue. But industries come and go, and save for a few coastal cities there’s no guarantee that spending extra money to build a beast of a house will ever pay off. Just ask the citizens of Detroit, who have been tearing down well built brick houses left and right.
Yeah… My bro recently bought a flat with garage in London. He doesn’t own a car, so last time my parents were flying out of Heathrow, being the happy new owner of a garage, he invited them to leave the car at his, as parking for several weeks would be extortionate. Their car is one of these; big, but not huge, not even by UK standards.
There was something like 1" clearance on the passenger side, 5" on the driver’s side, and they had to take the aerial off. When Dad finally got it in there (with a lot of time and yelling of ‘left a bit!’ ‘Stop!’'), he had to climb out the back and they could only just shut the door. Maybe an acceptable garage if you have a Smart car…
I think a large part of the expected permanence is the sheer cost of building land here. Building a really solid roof may be expensive, but it’s still a small percentage of the overall cost of the site plus build.
In the city in Indiana we just moved to, it seems like there are as many metal roofs as shingle.
The Great Storm of 1987 had a maximum recorded wind gust of 135 mph (in Normandy), with gusts of 81 mph or higher recorded for several hours in south-east England (although to be fair many anemometers failed due to lack of electrical power).
A Category 4 hurricane, by definition, has sustained winds of at least 130 mph; a Category 5 has sustained winds of at least 157 mph. In a typical year, the United States will have 25 to 40 tornadoes rated EF3 (wind speeds of at least 136 mph) or higher. Notoriously bad tornadoes can top 200 mph. I am not sure you are thinking of the same scale of events.
You answered your own question. It’s cheap. Using more durable materials requiring more skilled labor is more expensive. The more well-off can afford concrete/masonry, etc. if they want. Cheap housing, at least in the past before all the new building codes drove costs through the roof, theoretically allowed more Americans to build/own their own dwellings. It would be useful to compare dwelling stats Europe vs. USA.
I find it surprising that people buy these shoddy American houses when you can easily make a better one at home yourself.
“If you aren’t able to build your own house from scratch, store bought is fine.” 
There are a lot of historic and economic reasons. I would guess that the trend started with the end of WWII, when many thousands of young men came home to a booming economy and started families. New wealth, unprecedented upsurge of population, lots of cheap flat land with nothing on it, and a culture of build it faster and cheaper. Demand outstripped supply and developers turned to production line methods of erecting houses. I spent my first ten years in such a house, in the first housing development in Milpitas California, built for the workers of the new Ford plant. It was cramped and cheaply done, but I would wager for most of the inhabitants, like my parents, it was the first house they could afford, a dream come true.
I know something about California building practices. I would far far rather be inside a cheapo plywood box anchor-bolted to a poured reinforced concrete perimeter foundation (i.e.: a standard California house) than any “solid” masonry or stone building. It is not fire that is the greatest danger to California houses, it’s earthquakes and, surprisingly, simple earth movement. Because it is a climate of great moisture extremes, clay soils expand and contract over a year far more than in many places, and that tears unreinforced masonry apart.
As far as ugliness goes, well, virtually every single thing people make now is ugly to start with and ages ungracefully. Why should houses be different?