Making houses out of wood.

This is fine. Lumber was historically plentiful in North America, and lumber houses last just as long as stone or brick.

Lumber has several advantages over stone/concrete/brick:

• Less CO2 impact from construction activities. Concrete production is a huge contributor to atmospheric CO2.
• Greater sustainability in general. Concrete is approaching a global sand shortage, because most sand in the world doesn't have the right qualities to be included in concrete.
• Better energy efficiency and insulation properties. Brick homes need double walls in order to compete with the insulation properties of a wood framed house that naturally has voids that can be filled with insulation.
• Better resilience against seismic events and vibrations (including nearby construction). The west coast has frequent earthquakes, and complying with seismic building code with stone/masonry requires it to be reinforced with steel. The state of Utah, where trees and lumber are not as plentiful as most other parts of North America, and where seismic activity happens, has been replacing unreinforced masonry for 50+ years now.
• Easier repair. If a concrete foundation cracks, that's easier to contain and mitigate in a wood-framed house than a building with load-bearing concrete or masonry.

Some Northern European and North American builders are developing large scale timber buildings, including timber skyscrapers. The structural engineers and safety engineers have mostly figured out how to engineer those buildings to be safe against fire and tornadoes.

It's not inherently better or worse. It's just different.