Hi Bommai, actually holding the framed wall in the thickness of the coats of stucco is correct so that the surfaces of both walls plane in even. That's why out here we use a z-bar flashing. Picture the "z" being inverted ,(or upside down),so that the upper back flange nails to the framed wall, goes out over the block, with the outside flange hanging down over the block. Then a perforated j-channel is held up 3/8" or so nailed to the framed wall above the flat or level section of the z-bar. Underlayment,lath, stucco coats go over the flanges nailed to the framed wall so that moisture runs off the underlayment, out the perforations of the j-channel, hits the z-bar which directs it out over the block. If they held the framed wall out flush to the block, it would have an overhang because of the thickness of the stucco coats and even with a weep screeding, unless they flashed the transition point framed wall to block, moisture could still seep between. I dont have the know how to post a drawing on this forum, but if you would like to e-mail me, I could take a digital of a drawing and e-mail it to you if you provide me an e-mail address to you or your builder. I dont know of any websites that show this method, but you could google framed wall to block wall transition and see if they instruct on different claddin methods, in your case, stucco.

As a clarification, our house is 120 years old and the existing foundation is showing it's age. I doubt it's going anywhere, but adding to it is questionable at best. The idea of the mushroom footings and columns is to avoid adding stress to the existing house. The new piers would replace existing piers along the back wall of a one story addition which started out as a porch. My initial description is incorrect. Thanks mightanvil for pointing that out. There would be four mushroom cement blobs buried 4 feet under supporting typical 10" cement columns along a 14 foot wall. The columns would support 4' lengths of lally (exposed to the elements), then 4X4 wood columns would run through the first floor wall and carry a beam for the second floor 2x12x18 24" o.c. joists. The 4X4's would continue to the roof line and support another beam for the flat roof 2x10x18 16" o.c. joists. Maybe those are called rafters, but it's a flat roof so they might be joists. The structural engineer designing this is the architect, designer, and owns the contracting company. It's a design/build outfit that's been around a long time, and the city inspector relies on his stamp of approval. I'm concerned about minimal requirements. For instance, we had some options to upgrade from 2X10's to 2X12's for an 18 foot span. I thought that was a good thing. So as part of a $3,000 work order change I was surprised to see the plans had the 2 X 12's at 24" o.c. After he explained that his plan met Massachusetts building code, he wants another $300 to make them 16 o.c. and thinks it's a needless change. If he didn't have our 1/3 deposit ($8k) and a ($3K) change order to beef things up, I'd move on. I've only seen piers supporting decks, and some houses along oceanfront properties. Been searching the building codes and haven't seen much written about this design. Code is linked at end of posting. Any assistance or words of wisdom appreciated. I will pay attention to the bracing within the walls of the 4x4' columns as suggested above by early1. Here is a link that might be useful: Mass Building Code online

I'm in Essex Ct, NJ. So likely not a big difference in construction costs, etc. Last year we completed a gut reno of our existing 1400 sq feet and added another 1600sq ft (out and up) + 600 foot basement under the addition. Not including any landscaping/hardscaping but including architect fees, permits + everything else it was around $375k. From what I understand costs have gone up since then so maybe $400k+ now. An important consideration that I didn't see you bring up is what the house would be worth after the addition/renovation. That's an important consideration, and what drove our decision to go ahead with the project. As for "it's cheaper to tear down & rebuild" - well, that's not necessarily true. In our town there are huge fees for doing new builds, and a different set of requirements which also add to costs significantly. Plus no matter what you are constrained in size by zoning laws, setbacks, etc. So the resulting home is no bigger. Sure, it is going to have a better layout, and maybe that offsets the big increase in costs, but likely not.

D E, you are really close, but from your example I am not certain you are totally there as cost is part of the consideration. cost effective would be getting the r60 roof. I can save money by going down to r38 but that was not effective because I didn't achieve my stated goal. That depends on the marginal utility of the r60 roof over an r38 roof, which is something that I can't answer for you. It is less about stated goals than maximizing utility, and utility is a bit individualistic. So for example, if you would prefer an r60 roof, but find that it will only add about 20% more utility to your life than an r38 roof at a cost of 80% more money then it is not cost effective (utility being some combination of comfort and discounted cooling costs). Thinking about this example in reverse is better. If you only want and need an r38 roof, any marginal cost to get you to an r60 roof is wasted regardless of how great a deal it is. ----- Looking at what I do from a resale perspective. Let me clarify my meaning of going through the design a few square feet at a time and asking is there any way to increase profit out of that square footage. What I really do is set a target price point, and ask is that square footage (or design element) helping me get to that price point? If the answer is no, then I ask if it can be eliminated? I don't care whether it cost me $20 or $500, if it isn't helping me get to my price point, it is wasted regardless of how much it costs. Obviously, you start at the most expensive stuff, and that is where the efficiency really comes in. Converting this from resale to living, I ask how will I use that square footage? If the answer is anything similar to I wouldn't, then I see if it can be eliminated. This can be used for square footage, rooms, r value, HVAC, etc.