My first though reading the title was, you need to build it with STONE. So was "Taj Mahal" and many other religious structure lasting LONG years.
So many elements of this thing don’t make sense together. Clad the whole thing in a double layer of brick that isn’t actually going to bear load? Why? This is unlikely to last for 1000 years anyway. It probably won’t survive the first major earthquake and even if it does you’ll probably have to tear it apart to get to those seismic fuses.
In general structures do not remain standing unless they are maintained, so plan for that. Assume the cladding can and will be replaced. The person who needs to do work on this imaginary house certainly isn’t going to reclad in this nonsense at 4x the cost of the brick veneer it actually needs. Hell, just wrap the thing in hardiplank and it will probably be fine for the first 100 years.
But most structures standing for that long have also been maintained to some degree. Unmaintained millennium-old structures are generally referred to as ruins.
Christchurch was hit by a 6.2, but most of the damage occurred on the suburban south-Eastern half of the city, and the commercial buildings in the city centre which were more vulnerable. 10’s of kilometres away and no significant damage to buildings.
The magnitude 7.8 Kaikoura earthquake in 2016 had an epicentre 100km away from Christchurch, and there was no damage here in Christchurch.
Italy is ~1000km long.
It’s perhaps more interesting to ask what non-stone buildings have survived 1000 years. I don’t think there are any. So even if stone is more susceptible to earthquakes, it might still be the best choice for a building to last 1000 years.