Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wooden buildings have the advantage that in an active seismic area they can survive (or let the occupants survive) earthquakes much better than brick. Building codes in California prefer wood pretty much for this reason, even though they are more susceptible to fire. Fires can be controlled, versus having every masonry house in a city fall down simultaneously.
There are some brick buildings in the Mediterranean which are seismically resistant. Italy, the birthplace of concrete, is seismically active after all: https://clay-wienerberger.com/expertise/brick-buildings-for-... I'm curious as to whether wood-over-brick could allow taller structures than wood or brick alone. Building cheaply in the 50-85 foot range (high-rise regulations kick in above a floor height of 75 feet)…
Brick is certainly strong up to a point, but when it fails, it fails spectacularly.