Construction costs: house overhang vs. living area?

Hello everyone,

I am not exactly sure if this is not exactly the same question as when someone asks whether an airspace saves living space. Therefore, I come with the question to what extent it is deceptive or not if I want to build a house overhang in order to shift the living space and thus the costs for the living space to another floor? I am aware that there are costs for additional constructive/static elements, the statics themselves, and the material. The idea was an overhang as in the attached example. Are the additional costs for structural elements and material disproportionately high, so that it is basically like wasted living space with airspace?

...you will only be able to say that for sure if you let yourself be offered it. It certainly also depends on the size. The one in the picture is definitely a house number. Because it is both wide and deep. A lot of concrete and steel must have been sunk there. I think it looks really great. You certainly don't save anything compared to the living space. With such a size, rather the opposite. So if you look at it price-wise compared to wasted living space... then yes, of course. In the example in the picture, it certainly wouldn't have been more expensive to simply add additional living space instead of the setback.

Ok, too bad. I had hoped that the overhang seen above would be cheaper than a normal cantilever, which is statically just a cantilever. I thought the really cheap part here is that it is effectively fixed on two sides.

The image is missing a downpipe... so the water splashes directly from the pipe onto the terrace.

Regarding the costs, everything has actually been said: it will be more expensive, starting from the special structural engineering to the actually higher material usage. The living room could also become comparatively dark this way.