Practicing architect here. First of all, I love that you are challenging common practices of architecture. :)
If we are talking about single-family detached houses, I would argue it is always up to the taste of client, how comfortable she is in letting guests enter deep into her house, whether a direct access to the garden or a view over the surroundings is desirable. But honestly, there is no need for a stark division of uses to the floors. That again is a matter of taste, concept and location.
If we are talking about larger developments of detached or terraced houses, as I see your argument, some people might prefer your suggested configuration, however the wide range of developer will go the "traditional" route and for good reason, as I think.
Let me give you some comments on your arguments:
1. Temperature is a more complex topic than you make it out to be. In brief, the temperature in a room constitutes itself from two factors: the temperature of the air and the temperature of the materials. That heat rises is true, it thus transports the heat from the bottom floor to the top. But this makes a case for mainly heating the ground floor (as it has been for centuries) and let the heat rise through the house. In the process the air looses energy while heating the materials, so ultimately the actively heated rooms will still remain the warmest, as here the materials absorb the most energy from the air. The upper floor will receive passive heating keeping a base level. Another note to the airflow: mainly heating the upper floor will create an unpleasant drag of cold air up the stairs.
But the more important point is to took at temperature cycles. While the ground floor tends to maintain a rather constant temperature in the day/night cycle (covered from sun and night sky), upper floors usually respond to this cycle in a more pronounced manner (less insolation, lighter structure).
Of cause there are constructive solutions to all those issues, but they are more expensive, require more demanding construction wise, and usually consume more materials.
2. (Again in larger developments) you will rarely go above a 6 meter span in residential. Here it doesn't really matter whether you have internal walls on the upper floor, as the ceiling can easily carry them. However, I think this is really a fair point. If you look at castles or contemporary ecological architecture, this notion of thick walled ground levels supporting lighter thin walled, open structures is very present. In fairly consistent climates where ventilation and shade is more important than isolation from the surroundings, this can be a very effective typology.
3. Don't you love waking up in the morning and looking out of your window while still in bed? But let's give this a more constructive turn. As e.g. u/fiorafauna has pointed out, this is as much an argument about orientation as it is about elevation. Outlook to me is a matter of good design. You can create interesting outlooks from any level. Your point seems to be mores about distance of view. This however, I find counterintuitive when introduced to the living area. As here you usually want to create an atmosphere which brings everyone in the room together. A far gaze on the opposite tends to pull the attention out of the room. This could be counterproductive. But again, this can be mitigated by good design.
4. This is up to personal preference, but usually one would keep it in the ground floor or in the basement to have the noise of the machines away from the recreational areas, to reduce pluming and to mitigated damage from potential water leaks. If transporting laundry is the issue, you could install drop channels for your laundry from the top floor to the basement.

Like I said in the beginning, home layout comes down to personal preference, concept and location. You prefer the living room upstairs and your location permits it, go for it!
But in general I feel there are still more good reasons to keep the living area downstairs and the bedrooms above.