Coming from a country where double-brick-and-tile is the gold standard, the concept of building your houses out of what is essentially cardboard tacked onto scaffolding is mindblowing.
On the other hand, when I realised that was the usual construction method in the U.S. it suddenly made sense of a whole bunch of movie moments when people smash into an damage or are thrown through walls.
You know that modern construction techniques in the US date back like over 70 years? It's not like the houses fall down. My house was built in like 1960, framed and drywalled, it's here still and perfectly solid. So I'm not sure what your complaint is.
"Cardboard tacked onto scaffolding" is plenty strong, especially in an earthquake when brick and tile tend to crumble into dust due to excessive rigidity. Remember, skyscrapers are built using the same "cardboard tacked onto scaffolding", except the scaffolding is steel instead of wood.
In the UK brick may be gold standard, but basic level would be block work with render or brick facing. Really it's just what builders are used to, and the skills that are available. Bear in mind too that there are a lot of old houses here (by which I mean over 100 years old) and they're not just the high-end ones. There are lots of shoddily-built victorian terraces with single skin brickwork and no foundations, but survivor bias means that somehow they're still standing, even if it is a bit scary when you realise how many are built directly onto bare earth with bricks that fall apart and old mines underneath. They've survived the Luftwaffe and 150 years or so of subsidence, so they're probably fine for another 100 more.
Timber framing is just not the standard, so there are more brickies. The cost isn't that different, otherwise the crappy estates would be built in timber rather than blocks. Likewise plasterboard is skimmed rather than taped, because that's how it's always done and that's what the plasterers are used to, even if the work is more skilled. If the UK does move away from blockwork I'd imagine that as building regs change and the cost trade-offs move it'll switch more to SIPs rather than ever to timber framing.
I'd guess this has a lot to do with the availability of resources, too. Timber is much cheaper in the US, so it's not economical to build with sturdier materials. Even some of the larger apartment complexes I've lived in were wood-framed.
Brick is not used in England because of cost or strength. Brick is used because historically London has burned down completely leaving many people homeless. Brick ensures that a fire will not spread from one hour to another. When you build a densely packed city it makes perfect sense to use fireproof material at any cost. When your houses are spread farther apart you rely your neighbor's house fire not taking your house down so flammable building materials is much less risk.
In fact brick is NOT always as strong as wood! Brick is stronger under compression, and it feels harder, but under tension brick is much weaker than wood.
Maybe I should just have said "standard", then. All except for very old, very cheap houses have at least single brick walls and tile or corrugated iron roofing. Nicer ('average' rather than 'high end') houses are double brick and tile.
On the other hand, when I realised that was the usual construction method in the U.S. it suddenly made sense of a whole bunch of movie moments when people smash into an damage or are thrown through walls.