15 September, 2026
Construction today is in the middle of exceptionally demanding times. The cost of construction has risen significantly, land is more expensive, and building new housing stock is becoming more difficult. At the same time, the demand for residences remains strong, and a large portion of the market is struggling to find properties that truly meet their needs and budget.
Under such circumstances, the answer cannot be to simply build more. We need to examine how we can efficiently use the existing building stock, and how we can build new properties that will remain functional and usable in the future.
It’s precisely at this juncture that the debate over the modernization of Greece’s institutional framework for property ownership is beginning. The new legislative initiative aims, among other things, to overcome the limitations of a hundred-year-old framework, allowing for the easier division or union of properties by minimizing obstacles arising from older regulations and the need for co-owner consensus.
Essentially, it opens up a discussion on how independently a real estate property can adapt to the needs of the times and its owner.
And that’s a great opportunity to reexamine how we perceive the value of property itself.
For decades, we have designed and built residences based on the needs of the moment. An apartment has a specific surface size, spatial arrangement, and ownership status. But a property can remain in the family for decades. Meanwhile, life changes.
At EPIKYKLOS, we have pondered that question for several years: what happens when children grow up, and a big house must turn into two smaller ones? Or when two small properties must be joined into a bigger one?
Until today, such a need may get stuck in the building’s bylaws and regulations and demand the consensus of other co-owners. That way, a property that was meant to provide a family with value may lose part of its use in the process.
A property shouldn’t become a burden just because its owner’s needs have changed.
It’s why, since 2020, we have applied an “advanced co-ownership structure” to all the buildings we develop ourselves so we can provide the de facto option for an owner to divide or unite their properties in the future. This translates into the potential to adapt their property to a changed reality independently of decisions they cannot control.
Back then, of course, we couldn’t predict how the related legislation would develop six years later. But we could predict that life would change nevertheless.
So, I consider the direction towards a more modern and flexible ownership framework a necessity. Not just because it can free the potential of a significant part of the existing building stock, but also because it can prompt us to see the building we design today in a different light.
The value of a modern real estate property cannot be measured just by the size of its surface, its energy efficiency, or its construction quality. It must also be measured by the open possibilities it creates for the future.
Buildings last for decades. Lives inside them change. The real bigger value is to predict and build for both cases.