Wooden roofs aren’t the norm (although not uncommon), They have a rustic look to them that’s hard to duplicate with other materials. Most houses have asphalt shingles.
Plastic and Aluminum siding is cheap to put on and you never have to paint it, which overrules the atrocious aesthetics for most people (there are a few maintenance free materials that look a bit nicer but they’re not common). Personally I split the difference and put metal on the soffits and fascia, but put cedar on for siding when redoing my house.
Wooden roofs are facing more resistance from fire codes now. Metal roofs also. The wooden ones are flammable, and the metal ones are difficult to cut through in case of a fire. Sometimes I wonder if the roofing tile industry is behind this. Obviously in the western wild fire zones wood is an undesirable material but for much of the country it seems like much less of a fire hazard than what we’re finding inside the houses now.
Wood construction is heavily promoted here. An entire “wood house” district here in Helsinki is under construction and being promoted that way right now.
I will say, the houses you see on those type shows are not representative of all areas in the US, and I think they are indeed on the flimsy end of American housing stock. Solid older houses aren’t “flip” candidates because the bones and locations are often too valuable to buy cheaply, even when the surface is dilapidated; and, fixing them up to look their best is more demanding.
In Florida, there are very few brick houses simply because of inertia. Brick requires ovens, and ovens require substantial demand to provide a return on investment. Nobody fires bricks locally because there isn’t enough demand, so bricks must be shipped in from other states, so bricks are expensive, so even fewer people want brick, etc.
We also have lots and lots of experience with building wooden and concrete-block houses to withstand hurricanes, and very little with building brick ones to do so.
It makes me sad. I always lived in brick houses in the UK and I really wanted to buy one here, but those that exist tend to be mansions or limited to single developments in outlying towns.
Brick construction was also artificially depressed until 1840 or so because of taxes on bricks that didn’t apply to other building materials. Also, at that time you had to fire bricks on-site, since there was no economical way to transport them before rail (unless you happened to be building on a waterway). So you could only build in brick where there was clay; London is so bricky primarily because it is built over clay (and because bricks were the only major building material that didn’t degrade heavily in the sooty/acidic air of the 19th century).
Brick housing will be found in North American cities that had major fires in the 1800s, causing them to change the housing codes. Toronto is an example. So is Chicago, which was so synonymous with balloon framing that it used to be called Chicago framing, but prioritized brick after the fire of 1871.
The main feature in preserving wooden buildings is keeping the roof in good repair. sideways water usually isn’t that much of a problem, but if the roof goes the rest of the house follows pretty quickly.
I don’t know where this idea that wood construction is somehow flimsier than masonry comes from; people that never played with Lego maybe? Masonry walls offer better fire resistance, and greater sound proofing due to mass, but are full of joints weak in shear and tensile strength. A properly constructed wood wall is very strong in shear and tension and is easy to build to the compressive strength required.
Maybe to the inexperienced modern 2x6 walls at 24" spacing look flimsy, but they are at least as strong as older 2x4 16 o.c. walls, and provide more room for insulation. There is a move to change framing styles to reduce the amount of wood even further to increase insulation value. Sheathing of OSB or plywood stapled on to the wall gives the wall great shear strength. Increasingly we are seeing reinforced gypsum sheathing (DensGlass) used to increase fire protection. This is often just shot on with roofing nails by framers working on a marginal budget, and is not as strong in shear when installed like this.
Masonry absolutely is superior for party walls in multifamily construction due to sound an fire resistance. You are much more likely to see ICF used in this application rather than brick or cinderblock, at least around Alberta here.
We can get termites. Termite damage in New England is much less common than other parts of the country. I assume it’s climate but I don’t really know the reason. Most people do not treat for termites here unless there are signs of a problem.
We have a relatively new beach house built to hurricane codes - OSB sheathing on both the inside and the outside of 2x6 exterior walls. I’ve never been in a house that felt so solid during high winds.
Come to New England or upstate New York some time. They aren’t that rare.
As long as the wooden frame is sufficiently elevated above grade by the foundation (rubble stone basements are common for the era in cold climates) termites should not be a problem.
Very little brick housing in California - we learned early on that it doesn’t last here. And some folks won’t live in a brick house even if it’s been reinforced, just because they don’t trust it.
“The Big One” is always in the corner of our minds.
FWIW, I know several people who were caught in a tornado. They said their wooden house would flex or bend when the wind hit it, where brick houses broke and fell down.
My house has been standing since 1912 with exactly the same wood holding it up the entire time. There is no sign at all it will fall down anytime soon. Houses far older made of wood are not uncommon at all.
Yeah, in earthquake country and places prone to some other sorts of natural hazards, you are better off with a wooden frame structure that can flex, rather than old masonry / brick construction.
That said, I would say the most predominant sort of house in CA is stucco on a wood frame. Certainly true in newer urban construction.
Wooden shake roofs started out as a matter of available materials, but eventually became something that a lot of people just liked the look of, and paid extra for. Asphalt shingles are cheaper. The wood shakes don’t last as long either, and are fire prone. My house had a wood shake roof that was leaving shakes all over the yard every spring. I replaced it with a Gerard metal roof that looks like tile - goes better with the stucco anyway. Shake roofs belong more on rustic wood exterior construction - of course that means you’ve probably built the thing somewhere out in the woods where there’s significant fire danger.
Wooden shakes or shingles are sometimes used as a siding material. That used to be much more common, and you will see it in older neighborhoods. Some modern companies still promote it: