Fascades look so cheap and tacky though haha. No offense to anyone that has them/likes them. Just my opinion

My house is is 175 years old. It has a stone foundation but wood framing. We've gutted this house and there's tons of rot to the siding, windows, sill beams etc. it was very expensive to fix. But the framing itself is solid- bc they used timber pretty much raw from a tree. They are MASSIVE from natural forest grown trees that were very old which makes the material denser. Code today for modern builds are flimsy by comparison that is generally farm grown from younger trees, so the wood is softer and more porous. I'm a real estate agent have seen modern (1960s and newer) falling apart structurally. Literally.

So yes, houses built from wood 100 years ago are likely very sturdy bc the materials while wood were of much higher quality. BUT a lot of those old wood frame homes are a major fire hazard due to the framing style often popular then (balloon frame used until I think the 1930s.) you probably won't be seeing modern new builds lasting 100 years without significant and expensive maintenance. A stone or brick house generally is a lot more fire resistant so that's an added benefit

Your answer is way better than mine

Plus, in my opinion at least, brick and stone are more aesthetically pleasing.

I'd rather make something that lasts then something easy. Passing down a property is an excellent source of generational wealth. Better to have inherited a sturdy 170 year old home made of brick or stone then a house falling to pieces at 80 years. Plus it's better for the environment to not have rebuild new homes.

I mean.. Europe has houses still standing that are hundreds of years old. Quality over speed my friend