You are not wrong. However, houses could still be built from wood like the 500 year old houses and churches made with actual timbers. Timber framed houses would use a lot less wood in the long run due to less waste and greater longevity (especially when coupled with bricks and concrete).

Milling large trees down to 2x4s and coupling it to drywall to build homes that don't last is a travesty.

There's a lot of great youtubers out there who document their work in construction. It seems like a subset of contractors/architects/builders are interested in doing "experimental" things and improving the world's understanding of how to build buildings.

This one is about energy efficiency: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBOvflXoWlw

I'm really interested in finding more videos like this because his videos go past "Home Depot said this is energy efficient", he instead tests these concepts and apparently works with different colleges that research these ideas.

Properly maintained wood houses are good for 100 years. My house is 70 years old. It required insulation and electrical upgrades, mostly diy, but is otherwise fine. Also, the wood is a carbon sink, vs masonry being a carbon source.

> I live in Europe and I can't understand why houses in the US are built with wood and drywall. It surely must be cheaper to use bricks/concrete and then renovate it fully every 20 years, or am I wrong here?

I would think that renovations are much easier to do, regardless of the time interval between them, with wood and drywall. Drywall can be torn apart with by someone with just their hands; wood may need some cutting, but once in shorter pieces, can often just be yanked. Even a large house can probably be gutted/internally-exposed in a day or two.

With any kind of masonry you have to swing a sledge hammer with a lot of force or bring in jack hammers. Once set, concrete will resist a lot of force against it, which is why it's generally used for slabs and foundations.

It also depends on what you mean by renovate: often changes are in internal layout, so if one uses good design techniques for the shell:

* https://www.buildingscience.com/documents/insights/bsi-001-t...

And floor trusses to reduce/eliminate internal load-bearing walls:

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysT3zXkFGB8

It give completely flexibility on what can be done inside the box.

Wood is also fairly cheap and plentiful in North America.

As for drywall: what are the alternatives for internal walls? Lath and plaster?

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lath_and_plaster

Some growth in popularity for wood in Europe; some Swiss examples:

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlplalGNfFM

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4j_UjIshzMc

Wood is cheaper in North America than it is over there. Also it has some advantages, like being easy and cheap to work with, safer in areas with seismic activity, and it’s renewable.

Wood structures have no issues lasting 100+ years as long as they’re protected from water and termite damage.

On the east coast I’ve lived in plenty of wood houses that were built in the mid 1900s and just renovated every few decades. My last rental was even originally built in 1910. Well built wood frames can last for a long time.

Renovate every 20 years? There are plenty of wood houses that are hundreds of years old and have had minimal renovation to the wood frame.