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.
> For example, aerated autoclaved concrete has better structural strength, doesn't need additional insulation, completely non-combustible, and is cheaper to build.
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.