That’s pretty much it. I grew up in Arkansas, and I’d say that 70% or so of houses had brick or partial brick exteriors, but they’re relatively rare here in New England and also in Wisconsin, where my husband is from. I haven’t traveled to the western US, how is it out there? And why the difference?
A lot of the brick in the south is made from local clay. It’s a cheap material to use.
Well, it used to be cheap. Labor costs for brick masons make new brick homes a luxury these days.
I love houses that use cut stone. That was another cheap local material. But, labor costs have made cut stone one of the most expensive materials to use.
More termites down there, too.
It all depends on the houses. There are many brick buildings in Wisconsin or better yet find one of the older cut stone houses. I think you’re just assuming.
Yeah, but it’s not like it’s brick all the way through - they’re frame houses with brick siding.
Just as a point of information, Chicago is mostly brick (and stone), too. The Great Chicago Fire had a bit to do with that, though.
There’s a lot of factors that go into whether cities are “brick cities” or “frame cities”.
Cities that had massive fires, or feared them, often became brick cities. Toronto, Chicago, Denver, and St. Louis are all examples of brick cities. In much of Florida, termites are an issue, so at least the first story of most new houses are concrete block. Older houses in Florida cities are often frame, but the wood used is termite-resistant, such as old-growth bald cypress.
Buffalo was located close to North Tonawanda, which at one time was one of the nation’s largest lumber ports. Thus, it evolved as a frame city. Cleveland and Rochester are also frame cities.
Of course, you’ll find frame houses in brick cities, and brick houses in frame cities. You won’t find many cities that are half brick and half frame, though; it’s usually dominated by one or the other, at least for the pre-WWII housing stock.
I’m not saying there aren’t any brick houses, but if you go to newer neighborhoods where I grew up, most of the houses will be brick. Go to a new neighborhood here in New England or Wisconsin, and a much higher percentage of the houses will be siding.
I have made the same observation. The South seems to be more brick than I am used to at home. I always assumed that one of the factors than discourages brick construction in the Southwest is earthquakes.
I love the old cut stone houses, too. You rarely see new ones of those today. But brick is still the dominant exterior material around Little Rock, AR. This neighborhood is brand new, and at least 90% of the houses are brick. They’re spec houses, too, and while the neighborhood is nice, it isn’t ultra-high-end or anything.
I have to laugh at the Brick options in my 1950’s neighborhood.
A neighbor told me his house cost $9500 new in 1955. His house has half brick on the front like mine. Other houses have half brick on the front and ends of the house. Only a handful in the neighborhood are full brick.
Based on 1950’s prices. I can imagine builders offering brick on the ends of the house for $350. Oh, you want full brick? $750 
I wish I had brick on the ends of my house. To add that now could easily cost $7000 or more.
You didn’t originally specify newer developments. Most of the new houses that have brick in Wisconsin, are only brick faced. An insulated load bearing wall is behind the brick. Brick is a terrible insulator, so not a good choice to make a solid wall in a colder climates with heating costs what they are. I don’t know if most the new homes in Arkansas are brick faced or sold brick support walls. I suspect the majority are also just brick faced with an insulated support wall. Still many new houses built in the last decade have switched back to outer brick facing in Wisconsin. It’s just local varying trends.
Don’t know if it’s true in the North, but in the South a brick house used to be a status symbol.
The larger more expensive houses are the one that usually get a brick facing in Wisconsin. It’s an extra cost. The cheaper houses usually have vinyl siding only and what’s under that siding is scary. There’s rigid foam insulation on the outside of the studs, a plastic sheet and vinyl siding.
Brick stands up to mold, rain, and lots of sunshine and heat WAYYYY better than wood or painted wood. And better than siding too.
IMO in the south, if you want a surface you don’t have to mess with, its brick baby.
Brick looks lovely, but it’s hella unstable in an earthquake!
Even if I’m in a tectonically stable part of the country, I still get nervous in brick houses. I’ve been taught since I was a wee one that the Big One could hit AT ANY TIME, and that brick houses would COLLAPSE INTO RUBBLE AND YOU WILL DIE.
However, lots of older* places here (L.A., if that wasn’t clear!) have foundations, porches, etc. made of arroyo rocks. Sometimes even the whole house, though those are gorgeous but rare and expensive.
For some reason the stone-foundation houses don’t trigger the ZOMG UNSAFE!! mental warnings that the brick ones do, though really there’s no difference between them and in fact the arroyo rock may be less seismically stable.
*older = built before WW2. This is L.A., for us that’s an old house.
Peterborough and Toronto, Ontario, had significant brickworks in the late nineteenth century. So the characteristic buildings of that period are brick. 1930s houses in Peterborough. Downtown Peterborough.
Interestingly, places like Bancroft, Ontario, were lumber camps or lumber towns then. The characteristic commercial building along the main street in Bancroft, even now, is a building covered with siding or even stucco, and with a false front. There are many later brick buildings, though.
Edit: Toronto also had a major fire, and the whole area rarely has even feelable earthquakes.
Yup. The mill buildings in New England are usually brick. I worked in one for years, and it was always very cold in the winter, much colder than other buildings I spent time in during the winter. In New England heating costs are a big issue considering the average outside temp is only above 65F two months of the year.
Summary of points:[ul]
[li]brick is a poor insulator; that’s more important in the north than the south.[/li][li]brick resists mold & humidity better; that’s more important in the south.[/li][li]brick resists insects (termites, mainly); that’s important in the south. In the north, winter freezes them off.[/li][li]brick clay is more readily (cheaply) available in the south; wood from trees more available/cheaper in the north. [/li][li]brick construction is harder to do when it’s below freezing; that’s more a problem in the north.[/li][li]brick is less stable in earthquakes, which are slightly more frequent in the south. [/li][li]brick is more susceptible to damage from freeze/thaw cycles, which happen more in the north.[/li][li]brick masons are more common in the south, while the north has more carpenters. (Because there are more jobs, because that’s how they build houses there. Circular, but true.)[/li][/ul]
‘Status’ of housing materials seems to depend on rarity. Brick is fairly common in the south, so the high status houses are something else: think of the plantation mansions, with big white wooden pillars out in front, and big slabs of white-painted wood walls behind. Up in the north woods country, most houses are wood frame construction. So the high status ones are brick or stone mansions. Whatever it takes to show that your house uses fancy, imported materials, not the same kind of stuff that everyone else uses.
Slight detour: I was recently in Toulouse, France, which is known for its beautiful red brick buildings. At closer inspection, though, I discovered that some of the buildings were made of other materials, like concrete, with the bricks painted on.
Perhaps real bricks would have been toulouse.