And give many of Europe's house's a small rattle and they would fall down.
I'm in Christchurch, 6.2 Earthquake in 2011 and wooden framed houses dealt with it pretty good - they flex - lots of the houses survived and are still used.
Just about anything old and bricky was a deathtrap (fortunately many were unoccupied because condemned after nearby 2010 Earthquake).
We had some earthquakes before, I was on the 10th level, you could feel the house "flex" in a way. Nothing happened and it's been standing there since Soviet Union or longer (obviously with maintenance).
We don't get many earthquakes here though, we do get storm but it doesn't cause power outage at all.
And considering most of Europe is basically low risk territory, it makes sense?
Afaik, only Turkey and a small part of the Balkans is considered earthquake territory. And there's no fracking in Europe to induce minor manmade earthquakes either.
Some parts of Italy are at earthquake risk https://maps.eu-risk.eucentre.it/map/european-seismic-risk-i...
Despite being hit by earthquakes more often than other parts of Europe, usually only buildings and houses not built up to standard or old ones crumble, other buildings just shake and that's it. Of course, I do not know the exact risk of earthquakes in California and their intensity, but it's definitely possible to build earthquake resistant brick buildings
> And give many of Europe's house's a small rattle and they would fall down.
In areas where we don't have earthquakes, yeah, what's the problem?
I think the problem is suggest that an earthquake zone's fire problems would be solved by building houses like they do in a non-earthquake zone