Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why do we permit such fire prone housing to be built just to save a few dollars. I know you didn’t mean it, but this question isn’t a question. It’s a statement formed as a question. It’s a judgement. It’s not a curiosity legitimately asking why. There are so many good reasons why houses in the US are built the way they are. Some of which are… 1. Concrete/Brick houses retain heat and are often harder to cool. They…
Since we're on a wild tangent here, the US house construction is also held back by the sheer momentum of wood-framed buildings. For example, aerated autoclaved concrete has better structural strength, doesn't need additional insulation, completely non-combustible, and is cheaper to build. Yet approximately nobody in the US uses it.
Apparently it ages out though and becomes unsafe when it does, resulting in a scandal in the UK:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-66686864
"There is nothing fundamentally wrong with reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (RAAC) as building material or system. Many buildings from the 60s and 70s built from many materials are now having problems due to inadequate maintenance, and old age."
I'm not exactly sure what this is supposed to mean. I've never heard of this problem with regular brick or concrete structures.