Did the architect offer examples?

Is he suggesting this, because, your foundation will not support a second floor addition? It certainly doesnt sound appealing to me. It sounds a bit strange. Where does the stairway go, to get to it?

What’s he been smoking? Who wants to spend to build an entirely new house and still have the old one left? Some subterranean Morelock?

Not enough information.

Explain why the addition can't rest on the existing house walls or post in the existing walls.

What is the vertical thickness of the existing roof?

How would the code required lateral bracing be provided without looking strange or blocking windows?

Why not remove the existing roof after the addition is built for higher ceilings?

How large is the house and the site?

Where is the house located?

The only advice I can offer is to not rely on your architect for cost estimating; find a contractor to assist you in the design phase.

Also, check the credentials of your architect and consider involving an engineer.

Yes, need more information.

I can see this design being useful for the Outer Banks of North Carolina, with frequent storms and hurricanes, but otherwise... yes do give more info.

I have seen dozens in areas prone to flooding in CA.

This doesn't mean you can see the "stilts" as they may be posts going through existing walls to new foundation pads when the existing foundation is not adequate to support the load of a new level.

Escher was ahead of his time.

That really does not sound appealing. What was his reasoning?

Here's what it would essentially look like from the plans that were given to me as we are thinking about building over our 1 story home. I just want to know that a house like this has been done before and if you can share examples, or pictures of homes that has had this done before would be helpful.

What a joke!

Why would you want to spend more money for a worse result? That’s just skewed thinking.

I don't say this kind of thing often. I try hard not to be a relentless voice of negativity. However this has to be the dumbest thing I've ever seen.

I am willing to revise that opinion if someone edumacates me differently - but honestly, I'm sitting here speechless that someone is actually considering doing this. That picture Worthy posted...I have no words.

I took a look at those "fly over" houses and in the article that was linked in the post by "worthy" and it said that those houses were built with some new construction materials that lend to that application and not the old fashioned stick built type of house. Those houses in the photo are also just very, very small buildings probably no bigger than a garage.

OP, that architect has the responsibility to answer your questions. You should not have to seek information from the general public

I have seen the houses out in the lower. parishes of Louisiana where the worst of the flooding was that are up 20" in the air, but no houses on the ground level beneath it because, well, because it would defeat the purpose, wouldn't it?

It seems that there may be a bit of misunderstanding or misinterpretation of what this architect is offering. When a second story is added, it is my understanding that additional support is built in to the lower structure and it can also be used to extend that original structure to a larger footprint so that the entire house is made larger both upper and lower. It looks like that is what you are being offered.

But, why leave the existing roof structure? Did the architect offer any detail as to any structural advantage to doing that, or any pros and cons other than it is cheaper? Plus, you have all of that wasted vertical space where the roof is pitched and it would make the upper level that much higher off the ground. It also looks to me as if it would create a space that might make play havoc with the building codes. Or, maybe not.

Seriously, the architect needs to be the one to answer your questions.

The one big question is WHY leave the existing roof structure. It may or may not really be to your advantage. It is my understanding that the roof is usually removed.

Perhaps someone here who is more familiar with the different professions that deal with such can offer you advice as to who you might seek a second opinion from. And, what you need it advise from another professional.

From my vantage point I advise you to spend the extra and do it the way it is usually done, unless there is some proven advantage to leaving that structure in place. I think, though, that if that were the case that there is an advantage to it, it would be the way it was usually done. And, it, obviously, is not.

Looks like it will be a nice house, however I'm not sure the construction method is doing you any favors besides possibly keeping rain out during the construction phase as with the roof staying on then there will be no leaks into the house. However I would not like to have the roof structure there as I think it will cause other things to also cost more. You need extra height in your stairs, you will have a hard time ever repairing anything that goes wrong in the joist area as you then will need to rip up the flooring you have to get to it vs. just removing and patching drywall. The last one although it can be a mess doesn't require you to get and replace new floors etc. so is much easier on the pocket book.

I think removing the roof structure will be worth it and not doing so will be short sighted for longer term living. Consider you have a upper floor plumbing leak - the roof will be great at shedding that water to the sides and it will go into a wall most likely on the 1st floor and probably not noticed for a long time and likely to grow a nice colony of mold. If and when it is noticed you'll have fun trying to figure out where it came from as it could be running off from anywhere above it so you'd have to take apart the whole upstairs on that angled side of the roof to figure out where it came from. However if the roof wasn't there you'd see the leak almost directly below where the leak is very soon on the ceiling and you'd be fairly certain that the leak is close to that spot.

So there's 4.5 feet of wasted unusable space between the first and second floors?!?

Seeing the drawing, I think it’s pretty innovative of your architect. The house doesnt look bad at all. If you razed the existing house and started over, would you change anything about the design?

The "flyover" house in my post above was a concept--not an actual house. The idea was to provide cheap new housing fast in crowded urban areas of Port Elizabeth, S.A. The company does not seem to exist anymore while the principal runs hotels and restaurants.

There are hundreds of capped bungalows in our city. But none that I know of that were done on stilts. Below is a capped home I renoed (interior only) that started as a bungalow circa 1920.

Capped bungalow. Danforth Village, Toronto. Sold 11/17 for C$935k

The only advantage I see is that you might be able to live in the existing house with less disruption during the construction phase. Short-term gain for long term pain. Move out and do it right!

We did a remodeling of a large house once where upon demolition we discovered a section of the original house and roof intact inside the floor system just as your architect is proposing. Everyone got a kick out of the discovery. We ended up remodeling that house 3 times for 3 different owners and now it’s all been torn down and an even bigger house built ( it’s a double waterfront lot).

Not a pro. Not a fan of the idea for some of the reasons posted above, and also because I think the vertical space between the windows looks odd. Usually if a house has taller ceilings, the windows are also taller, so that there is not a lot of additional vertical space between the 1st and 2nd story windows.

Is this a separate house? You call it a second story but how could you get there if the original roof won't be touched? Would you have to go outside?

You call it a second story but how could you get there if the original roof won't be touched? Would you have to go outside?

Looking at the plans that the OP posted, the addition will also include adding a whole new area to the front of the house where the stairs go up to the second floor.

So the foyer has a 12.5 foot ceiling, the rest of the first floor has 8 foot ceilings and the second floor has 9.5 foot ceilings.

I would tear off the roof in stages so temporary weather protection could be provided while the second level was installed. I've done this many times and there were no problems.

Because of the additional wall cost for the original design, I suspect removing the roof would save money and time.

Be aware that enclosed spaces over a certain size above a ceiling require fire service access so this would not be a design the local fire chief would like. I suspect you might be required to cut a lot of openings in the old roof and provide multiple ceiling access hatches.

Its a bad idea for so many reasons its impossible to mention everything. Its something an architect should have known to avoid.

Floor hatches from above would be easier and kids would love it.

The problem with the steel piers supporting a house is it would require a welded steel frame or diagonals for lateral bracing.

None of this bizarro design can possibly be cheaper than a proper teardown and rebuild.