The Hotels That Taught Greece How to Travel: The Return of Xenia

Across Greece, some of the country’s most important modern buildings have spent years hiding in plain sight. They stand beside beaches, above mountain towns and at the edges of historic settlements, their long horizontal forms still following the contours of the landscape even when their windows are broken and their rooms have fallen silent.

These are the remains of the Xenia hotels, a nationwide network of state-built accommodation that helped shape Greece’s post-war tourism identity. Long before boutique hotels began speaking about local materials, quiet luxury and architecture connected to its surroundings, Xenia attempted to create a distinctly Greek model of modern hospitality.

Some buildings survived and continued operating, while others were demolished, abandoned or altered beyond recognition. Today, a new series of leases, tenders and restoration plans is bringing the network back into public discussion, raising an important question: can the Xenia hotels return to life without losing the architectural qualities that made them significant?

A national experiment in hospitality

The name Xenia comes from the ancient Greek concept of hospitality towards a guest or stranger, but the hotels were conceived in response to the very modern conditions of post-war Greece. During the early 1950s, the country was rebuilding after the devastation of the Second World War and the Greek Civil War, while tourism was beginning to emerge as a possible source of economic development.

The Greek National Tourism Organisation launched an ambitious programme to create high-quality accommodation in areas of natural, archaeological or cultural interest where tourism infrastructure was limited or entirely absent. The buildings were not intended only to accommodate visitors. They were also supposed to establish architectural standards and demonstrate to private investors what modern tourism in Greece could become.

An academic study of the programme identifies 53 hotel complexes, motels and tourist pavilions designed and supervised by the organisation’s architects, while references to the GNTO archives place the wider number of buildings produced under the project at approximately 70. The programme developed over roughly two decades, becoming one of the most important state-supported building initiatives in post-war Greece.

Charalampos Sfaellos directed the organisation’s technical department between 1950 and 1957, followed by Aris Konstantinidis from 1957 until 1967. They worked alongside a generation of important Greek architects that included Dimitris Pikionis, Dionysis Zivas, Kleon Krantonellis, Filippos Vokos, Konstantinos Stamatis, Georgios Nikoletopoulos and Katerina Dialisma.

Rather than repeating one standard hotel across the country, the programme created a family of buildings connected by a shared philosophy, with each one responding to the conditions of its location.

Modernism shaped by the Greek landscape

The architectural importance of Xenia lies partly in its ability to combine the principles of modernism with a careful reading of the Greek landscape. The hotels were generally low-rise, human in scale and positioned to make the most of the surrounding views, natural light, shade and prevailing winds.

Concrete, metal and glass appeared beside stone, timber and other materials associated with each region. Balconies, covered walkways, courtyards and semi-enclosed terraces created gradual transitions between interior and exterior space, allowing the buildings to remain open to the landscape without becoming completely exposed to the climate.

This sensitivity distinguished the Xenia hotels from the large resort complexes that would later dominate many coastal destinations. They did not attempt to overpower their settings with monumental architecture. Their purpose was to frame the landscape, allowing a visitor to experience the sea, mountains or ancient monuments as part of the stay.

The approach extended beyond the exterior shell. Rooms, furniture, lighting, colour palettes and circulation routes were designed as parts of a single architectural composition. Repetition and standardisation helped control construction costs, but the final result was not supposed to feel generic. Each hotel interpreted the same principles through its particular location and cultural surroundings.

Among the best-known examples were the Xenia hotels of Mykonos, Andros and Poros by Aris Konstantinidis, as well as the Xenia of Delphi by Dimitris Pikionis and Alexandros Papageorgiou. These buildings demonstrated that modern architecture in Greece did not need to reproduce either international modernism or a decorative version of traditional island style. It could be contemporary while remaining rooted in climate, materials and place.

The buildings that opened new destinations

The Xenia programme appeared before Greece possessed the tourism infrastructure it has today. Many of the locations selected for the hotels were not yet internationally established destinations, while some lacked even basic accommodation capable of serving foreign visitors.

By placing architecturally ambitious hotels in these areas, the state was not simply responding to tourism demand but actively creating it. The buildings functioned as early destination markers, signalling that a particular island, town or region was ready to receive visitors.

They also became part of local social life. Their restaurants, cafés, terraces and reception spaces were often used by residents as well as tourists, turning the hotels into meeting places rather than isolated resorts. In smaller communities, the arrival of a Xenia could represent both a new architectural landmark and a wider connection to the developing world of international travel.

The model was selective and relatively small in scale. It sought a form of tourism based on architecture, landscape and cultural encounter, although it also carried the limitations of a centrally planned vision created during a period when the state was trying to construct a new national image.

From national symbols to abandoned ruins

The qualities that made the Xenia hotels distinctive eventually contributed to their commercial difficulties. Many had a limited number of rooms and were designed for a tourism model that valued location and architectural quality over maximum capacity. As international travel expanded and Greece moved towards large-scale mass tourism, the small modernist hotels began to appear economically outdated.

Changing management policies, insufficient maintenance and uncontrolled alterations accelerated their decline. Some hotels were leased without strict rules governing their architectural preservation, while others were converted to different uses. Several buildings were demolished, and many remained empty long enough for exposure, vandalism and structural deterioration to cause serious damage.

In certain cases, the buildings survived physically but lost much of their original identity through extensions, new decorative elements and redesigned interiors. The problem was therefore not limited to abandonment. A Xenia could remain operational while becoming almost unrecognisable as a work of architecture.

By the end of the 20th century, the network that had helped introduce Greece to modern tourism had largely fragmented. Individual hotels followed different paths, and the shared vision connecting them gradually disappeared from public memory.

A new chapter begins in 2026

The Hellenic Public Properties Company, or HPPC, has identified the revival of historic Xenia properties as a strategic priority, with several projects moving forward during 2026. The programme includes different models, from long-term commercial leases to agreements with municipalities and public institutions.

At Xenia Karterou in Crete, a significant coastal property designed by Aris Konstantinidis has entered a long-term leasing process intended to lead to its development and reopening. The site covers more than 81,000 square metres and includes the seafront zone and beach, making the preservation of its relationship with the landscape particularly important.

A 30-year lease has been signed for Xenia Ouranoupolis with Domes Resorts, while the leasing process for Xenia Vytina in Arcadia has also progressed. Designed by Kostas Bitsios and constructed in 1961, the small Vytina hotel contains 20 double rooms and was designated as a protected monument in 2008.

In Komotini, MECCANICA GROUP has been named the highest bidder for a 40-year lease. The complex, designed by Dionysis Zivas and completed in 1965, includes 24 rooms alongside communal areas, a swimming pool and extensive outdoor spaces. A separate tender has been announced for Xenia Kozani, positioned on a hill overlooking the city.

Xenia Andros, also known as Triton, has been leased to the Municipality of Andros for 40 years. Designed by Konstantinidis and constructed in 1958, it was the island’s first hotel complex and has been protected as a monument since 2011. A further concession agreement involves Xenia Mytilene and the University of the Aegean.

These announcements represent substantial movement after long periods of inactivity, but they should not be confused with completed restorations. A signed lease or successful tender is the beginning of a complex process involving architectural studies, planning approval, conservation work, financing and construction. The final uses, opening dates and degree of architectural preservation will become clear only as each project develops.

Restoration is more than preserving a façade

The greatest challenge facing the Xenia revival is deciding exactly what must be protected. Saving only the external form of a building may preserve its recognisable outline while destroying the design philosophy that gave it meaning.

Research on the hotels argues for a holistic approach that includes their materials, interior spaces, furniture, colour, lighting and carefully designed relationship between the building and its surroundings. The landscape is not a decorative background to a Xenia hotel; it is part of the architecture itself.

At the same time, preservation cannot mean freezing the buildings in the 1960s. Hotels must comply with contemporary safety and accessibility standards, improve their energy performance and provide the level of comfort expected by modern travellers. Years of exposure have also left some structures requiring extensive and expensive intervention.

Successful adaptive reuse must therefore find a balance between historical authenticity and practical viability. New additions should remain subordinate to the original architecture, while redesigned rooms and communal spaces should interpret the logic of the building instead of disguising it beneath a generic luxury aesthetic.

The danger is that the Xenia name could be retained as a nostalgic marketing device while the architecture itself is stripped of its identity. The opportunity is much greater: these buildings could demonstrate how modern heritage can become commercially active without being reduced to façades or branded décor.

Could Xenia become a network again?

The original Xenia programme belonged to a specific moment in Greek history and cannot simply be recreated. Its buildings are now owned, leased and managed through different arrangements, while their physical condition varies considerably.

They could, however, be reconnected culturally. A recognised network of restored Xenia hotels, former hotels and tourist pavilions could form the basis of an architectural route across Greece, linking modern design with islands, mountain regions, archaeological destinations and smaller cities.

Such a route would add another layer to the way visitors understand Greek architecture. The country’s built heritage does not end with antiquity, Byzantine churches or neoclassical houses. The Xenia hotels reveal a 20th-century Greece attempting to define modernity on its own terms, at a time when tourism, architecture and national development were becoming closely connected.

Their revival could also support a more geographically balanced form of tourism by directing attention towards places beyond the most crowded island and coastal destinations. This would bring the programme close to its original purpose: using thoughtful architecture to reveal landscapes and communities that travellers had not yet discovered.

The return of Xenia will ultimately be judged not by the number of investment agreements signed, but by what survives when the scaffolding is removed. If the buildings reopen with their scale, materials, interiors and connection to the landscape respected, they may once again offer something that much contemporary hospitality struggles to create: a genuine sense of place.

Before Greece became one of the world’s most recognisable travel destinations, the Xenia hotels helped imagine what travelling through the country could look like. Their next chapter now depends on whether Greece can treat them not merely as valuable properties, but as living works of modern architecture.

Photo Attribution: