Architect has not delivered - who will bear the costs?

Architects are not magicians either. Unrealistic expectations from clients would also not be a reason for me to waive the agreed remuneration.

From a good architect, however, I expect him to either tell me that right away. Or to bring two alternatives to his too expensive design that at least nearly meet the budget. For example, one that fulfills the room program but with less equipment. And one that does not fulfill the room program but has the equipment. Or any mix in between, but which keeps the budget.
That way I can decide.

By the way, that is what I expect from all professionals who work in their job. Also, for example, from my employees and colleagues who assist me...

Hello
I am happy to share my problem with you - I had already considered doing so in a separate thread... Thanks for the offer!
But not now - it's too fresh, the matter is ongoing, and besides, I don't own the copyright to the plans since I don't want to pay for them...

Just so much - if it really is the case that an architect can do whatever they want after signing the contract (and very little at that) and still collect payment for all agreed phases - then as a private client, you can unfortunately completely forget about architecture... I would rather take the employed architect of a general contractor or prefabricated house manufacturer, at least they do what they are supposed to...

I expect a good architect to tell me that right away.

Well, it also takes character to admit that the money is not enough, and that must be communicated as well. Showing off has, after all, become the norm nowadays.

I expect a good architect to tell me that right away

Nobody said that good architects have more rights than bad ones. Even the bad one has the right to have their invoices paid.

From a good architect, however, I expect that he either tells me that right away. Or he brings two alternatives to his too expensive design that at least almost meet the budget.

I expect from an architect that he only starts his own practice once he has become good and has enough experience in translating budget into buildings, so that he does not even begin to "paint" when wish lists and wallets do not match. It follows that he tells a stingy client that they have to loosen more money, and a client whose budget is insufficient even without stinginess that fewer wishes can be fulfilled for that money. All wishes cost – not only those you have chosen: a slope costs, often more than marble and clinker, which then has to be compensated elsewhere by cutting wishes. I cannot rebuild my buddy’s flat-land house on my sloped plot for the same money. Isso.

No one mentioned that good architects have more rights than bad ones. Even the bad one has the right to have his bills paid.

The owed service is, even in the case of a good architect, only the approval-capable design; he does not need to please – and if he does, that is practically "customer service for advertising purposes." Compliance with the budget, on the other hand, is not a bonus but a component of performance that one may expect from a professional under "good faith" as a layperson. The architect is not responsible for rock or clay seams in the building ground, but he must consider material price increases within the average usual range, and he must not act completely surprised that design costs more than hardware store standard. "Architect" is, after all, a protected professional title; one cannot simply sit at the drawing board as a shoe and key service. Simply painting and invoicing a customer who says they only have the money for the house-from-St-Nicholas instead the house-from-St-Nicholas-thistle-mower is not allowed. Freelancing is not a free pass to intentionally or grossly negligently provide a consumer with deficient consideration.