ZOE GEORGIADOU

Department of Interior Architecture, Decorative Arts and Design, Technological Educational Institution of Athens

DIONISIA FRANGOU

Department of Interior Architecture, Decorative Arts and Design, Technological Educational Institution of Athens

DIMITRIS MARNELOS

Department of Interior Architecture, Decorative Arts and Design, Technological Educational Institution of Athens

ABSTRACT

In early 50’s The Greek National Tourism Organization (GNTO) made a severe nation- wide attempt to develop tourism in Greece, connecting it with economy and qualitative tourism. For a period of about two decades it developed the hotel buildings’s substructure, a project known as the “Xenia project”. During this period Greek architects, devoted to modernism, such as Ch. Sfaellos, A. Konstantinidis, Ph. Vokos, C. Kitsikis, C. Stamatis, D. Zivas, I. Triantafyllidis, C. Bougatsos, G. Nikoletopoulos, K. Dialisma, K. Krantonellis, and also D. Pikionis, designed and supervised, as Technical Bureau’s employees, 53 hotel compounds, spread throughout Greek regions of the mainland and the islands, with archaeological, topological or other touristic interest. This project’s policy was meant “to offer tourist accommodation in high class hotels, and also to show to private investors the aspired level of the new hotel facilities, that should be constructed in order to develop tourism as the new profitable, financial field in which the state aimed for”.

Today the Xenia hotels are internationally recognized as part of our modern cultural heritage based on the simplicity, the definition of the form and the truth in materials use, besides the integration of the buildings in the natural environment, components which reveal them as a unique venture. Today most lie abandoned, time-destroyed, void and unoccupied. Some of them are still in use, having undergone dramatic interventions, which have altered their aesthetic meaning, while extensions and adjuncts that have come about due to entrepreneurs’ occupancy have changed their earliest architectural inspiration.

This paper aims to reveal that despite the efforts to retain the Xenia hotels, these procedures remain incomplete. They rightly focus on architectural shells, morphological and functional standardization, proper utilization of the Greek environmental conditions, and the use of authentic local materials. However the cultural evaluation of these settlements can only be completed by their holistic design, which also comprises their interior spaces, lightening and furniture design, all these detailed aspects that form an organic entirety and are not included in these efforts. This paper suggests that this organic entity has to be treated as an unsegregated whole.

Key Words: Xenia hotels, modern cultural heritage, holistic design, architectural approach, interior design, furniture design, retaining.

1 INTRODUCTION

The Greek National Tourism Organization (GNTO) in the early 50’s, within the national effort towards an economical reconstruction of the country after World War II and the Greek civil war, made a severe nation- wide attempt to develop tourism in Greece. The field of tourism was already a priority for the Greek economy since 1914, under different forms of state supervision and control[1]. The GNTO Council, which consisted of 10 members that specialized in tourism, exerted the tourism policies of the organization planned and executed within the development of Xenia Hotels project, connecting it with economy and qualitative tourism[2]. On a national level this project defines the most important attempt for mass production of public buildings, under state supervision and funding. The technical bureau of the organization, staffed by trusted architects, undertook the responsibility to organize and support the Xenia project by developing, for a period of about two decades, the hotel building substructures in different “hoteling” types[3]. The main goal for this project was the “creation of standards in hotel resorts”, built in Greek regions with exceptional natural beauty and tourist interest, with insufficient or non-existent infrastructures. This project’s policy was meant “to offer tourist accommodation in high class hotels, and also to show to private investors the aspired level of the new hotel facilities, that should be constructed in order to develop tourism as the new profitable, financial field in which the state aimed for”.

During this period, starting from 1950 to 1957, Ch. Sfaellos as head of the Organization’s Technical Bureau and then A. Konstantinidis from 1957 to 1967, with a team of young Greek architects, most of them devoted to modernism[4], such as I. Triantafyllidis, Ph. Vokos, C. Bougatsos, C. Kitsikis, C. Stamatis, D. Zivas, G. Nikoletopoulos, K. Dialisma, K. Krantonellis, and also D. Pikionis, designed and supervised, as Technical Bureau’s employees, 53 hotel compounds, motels and tourist pavilions[5], spread throughout Greek regions of the mainland and the islands, with archaeological, topological or other touristic interest.

The Xenia project was completed in 1974 and officially terminated in 1983. However since 1970, coming to a climax in 1980, many of these model hotel resorts started to decline, were abandoned, left void and unoccupied (Xenia of Andros island, Florina, Nafplio, etc). Some were demolished with irregular procedures (Xenia of Chania, Heraklion, Joannina), others were leased under unfavorable terms, without defining regulations for preservation, expansion and architectural interventions (Xenia of Poros island, Mykonos island, Mesologgi, Drama, Nafplio, etc), others had their use changed (Xenia of Delphi, Olympia, Volos, Rethymno, Igoumenitsa) and the rest were transferred to the Hellenic Republic Asset Development Fund (HRADF)[6] properties, and were divested for reducing the public debt burden – Xenia of Paliouri Chalkidiki and Skiathos island have already been assigned since 2013.

The decline of the Xenia Hotels has come due to the turn to mass tourism, bad management, uncontrollable and unregulated construction of new hotel compounds during the period of the military dictatorship. The fact that Xenia Hotels are recognized as “building constructions that further the development of architecture in Greece” according to the theorist P. Michelis (1962), that consist of “the most important production of public buildings in Post-War Greece, achieving through the integration of the settlements in the peculiar and primeval Hellenic landscape, the establishment of a contemporary, pure, and sincere architectural expression, that interpreted the origins of modernism, through a deep comprehension of the local cultural references”[7], and that they are characterized as “cultural heritage of the Greek and European Architecture of the 20th Century”[8], didn’t stop the disregard and the destruction of many of them, in an environment where tourism policies don’t express anymore stable architectural objectives and vision.

2 ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE XENIA SUBSTRUCTURES

Up to the 1950’s major hotel compounds were very few, and situated in chosen, well known touristic sites. GNTO’s Management Council, in which two important and internationally recognized architects were members, A. Orlandos and P. Sakellarios, decided within the frame of its new tourism policies, to assign the invention of new architectural standards for tourist accommodation to a selected team of architects.

The Xenia project, except for large hotel resorts included many complementary programmes for tourist pavilions, stations, motels, regeneration of Spa-towns and also for optional destinations- sites of natural beauty, with touristic interest in the mainland and the islands, in areas that hadn’t yet developed their touristic substructures. The aim for building qualitative hotel compounds in these areas was to attract high class international tourists.

The Organization’s orientation towards the creation of architectural standards becomes clear both from the two eminent architects mentioned above[9], as well as from the creative team of young architects staffing the Technical Bureau who were well educated, most of them devoted to modernism, and who worked under the supervision of the inspired and experienced Ch. Sfaellos and A. Konstantinidis, heads of the bureau. The architectural options became one of the most serious practices for the tourism policies of the organization. The architectural standards, which were developed through their work, were based on a solid theoretical knowledge, expressed in A. Konstantinidis writings that can be summarized as follows:

a. The importance of the location and land chosen covers many of the design aspects – from the buildings’s scale, the microclimate components of the region – orientation, sun penetration, rainfalls, wind fields and natural cooling - the local materials, to the capacity of the building substructures to support the developmental potential of tourism, as well as the local life and existing culture. (Figures 1,2)

b. The sizes and standardization of the buildings as a whole, concerning their functional organization, their morphological and constructive rationality, always taking in to consideration the local conditions, as well as individual parts of them, for example the rooms (Figure 3).

c. The holistic design, where the configuration of the surroundings, the building shells and the interior spaces, in all their details, structure a common unit, share the same minimal aesthetics and complete each other.

Based on the above, the Xenia hotels that were built, despite their different characteristics and the uniqueness of each one of them, shared common design fields in their chosen locations with exceptional natural beauty thus recognized as landmarks, and also in the way they are embedded either into the natural or the urban environment. Their harmonic integration in the ground’s curves with low heights (1, 2 or rarely 3 floors), reveals in most of the settlements the adaptation to the human scale. The utilization of natural local materials combined with modern ones (basically concrete without any plaster, and metals)[10], as well as the study of the local traditional architecture, and the discussion about volumes and analogies, complete this integrative procedure.

The microclimate conditions define important design decisions, concerning the evaluation of the orientation (south or east for most of the openings, north for cooling) for maximum benefit of solar penetration, wind cooling, etc., as well as the connection between the surrounding and the built environment, through transitive enclosed open spaces, which connect the inner and the outer space. As mentioned by A. Konstantinidis (17.19.1969): “Let me see the way you build and I will tell you who you are. Not something entirely finished. Not something closed and unreachable. A place where inner and outer space compose an organic entity. The interior space comes out to the open space. The outer space penetrates the interior space. And they become one. All of us participate in the same procedure. What is for the first is also for the other- a construction with mental content. For a common quota, for a widespread balance”. And(15.4.1985): “So in the houses I have built….even in all the Xenia, I have put in the right positions, one, or two or even more enclosed open spaces, which made every building pleasantly “dwellable”. Because these semi-enclosed spaces, these spaces that are in between, between the inner and the outer space, give the opportunity to every human being to stand better on his “dimensions”, to live in accordance with nature, opening a dialogic conversation, which will offer them so many pleasures and beauties…”

The functional configuration is standardized with the use of a wings’s system, especially for the bedrooms, with a clear flow of movement in the internal spaces, as well as in the surrounding area- closer and further (Figure 4). The functional grid, which arises out of a simple architectural structure of typical parts, is identified with the constructive grid, which is made of concrete without any plaster[11]. The public spaces are separated from the private rooms, often with the use of transitive enclosed open spaces, as mentioned above. The standardization is focused on the basic repetitive module, which is the room, from its construction to the furniture and lightening used, aiming at money saving. The projects have detailed designs, and nothing is unintended- the balconies, the windows external louvers, the corridors, the cane sun screens[12].

“And here I am, where I have been looking for ways to have standardization for the construction, and also for the functional configuration, thus each architectural work not to be a unintended incident, but to be a work of thought, something that aims for being complete and perfect”.[13]

These general characteristics are what built the vision of Xenia project, which led to the major production of public buildings, during the post war period. Nevertheless, this architectural treasure, which is internationaly recognized as part of our modern cultural heritage, based on the simplicity, the definition of the form and the truth in materials use, and on the integration of the buildings in the natural environment, components which reveal them as a unique venture[14], lies abandoned, time-destroyed, void and unoccupied. Some of these settlements are still in use, having undergone dramatic interventions which altered their aesthetic meaning, while extensions and adjuncts that have come about due to entrepreneurs’ occupancy have changed their earliest architectural inspiration.

This paper aims to reveal that despite the efforts to retain the Xenia hotels, these procedures remain incomplete. They rightly focus on architectural shells, morphological and functional standardization, proper utilization of the Greek environmental conditions, and the use of authentic local materials. However the cultural evaluation of these settlements can only be completed by their holistic design, which also comprises their interior spaces, lightening and furniture design, all these detailed aspects that form an organic entirety and are not included in these efforts. This paper suggests that this organic entity has to be treated as an unsegregated whole.

3. THE HOLISTIC DESIGN AND THE INTERIOR SPACE OF XENIA HOTELS

The significance of the organic entirety was a widely accepted design concept, at least until the establishment of specialized areas in this procedure. This aspect prevailed in the work by many Greek architects during the post-war period, including A. Konstantinidis, D.Pikionis, C. Krantonellis, and others.

D. Pikionis in his work Xenia of Delphi, which was designed with his colleague A. Papageorgiou, as well as A. Konstantinidis in Xenia of Andros, Poros and Mykonos, were not only involved in the architectural construction but were actively involved in the detailed design of the furniture pieces, the style of the interior spaces and the color combinations used.

“The smallest detail and the general, total shape and size, should come out of the same spirit, in the same sensation, through the same vein, for a minimal perfection. The walls, the ceilings, the casings (doors, windows, dormer windows), the fireplaces, the closets, with them the entire furniture, should have common characteristics. Like in nature, the trees, the bushes, the flowers compose a world with the same essential core. And as everything, they taste the same and talk the same language. Thus all the constructive elements coexist, so that if one of them is missing, the other one is lost”.[15]The basic principles established in the general synthesis concern minimal forms, authentic local materials, colors and textures, as well as standardization, and are also the basic aspects in the interior space design of the hotel resorts (Figures 5,6).

From the photographic, archival material and the Greek movies of the 60s-70s which were shot in several Xenia hotels[16] we can notice this perception of “decoration”, not as a covering or incoherent concept, but as an integral element of the architectural synthesis in accordance with the principles of the modern movement[17]. The standardization of the equipment is achieved within modernity, through functionality, the combination of traditional and modern materials (usually wood and metals) and the aesthetics of industrial standards which prevail, either these are common works (for example furniture in the lines of Scandinavian design), or well recognized pieces (such as Barcelona by L. Mies Van der Rohe 1929, LC2, 3 The grand comfort armchairs by Le Corbusier, 1929, etc). (Figures 7,8). This aesthetic inspired A. Konstantinidis to design a series of standardized pieces of furniture for the bedrooms, armchairs for the public spaces and lamps for his Xenia hotels[18]. (Figures 9,10). And this is not a separate design attitude as it is incorporated by other architects too, such as I. Triantafyllidis (1961)[19], who in the presentation of his work for Xenia of Nafplio referred to the furniture he had designed, the textiles, the lamps and the art works, which he had assigned to contemporary artists of those years.

Generally the forms of the furniture pieces are geometrical, and wood is combined with leather and textiles, which reveal their color and geometrical forms. The special constructions, which are intended for public spaces, are completely integrated in them (bars, reception desks, shelves, closets, etc). Decorative motives on the furniture generally don’t exist, and in the few cases where we notice them, their presence is so small, that it supports simplicity. Metal and wood details are used for the staircases, balconies, rails, dividing walls, etc.

The colors have a visual weight, fulfilling the buildings’ form, assuring the continuance of the inner and outer spaces, suiting optically the geometry of shape. Yellow ochre, terra- cotta red, black, plaster white, sky-blue and indigo blue, these are the ancient Greek colors, which are called by A. Konstantinidis “grounds” or “Polygnotia colors”[20] and are combined with the natural color of materials such as wood and stone. “Color in Architecture is not a decorative coating. Color in architecture works with the constructive structure and is a valuable factor for making each built space an irreplaceable container of life. Because architecture is also made by color”[21]. Thus, the fabrics usedon furniture pieces have the color grade of the primary colors, usually in one color, and rarely in geometrical patterns with contrasts. The curtains were also designed using the same principles; there were usually two – an airy fabric, combined with a darker one. In rare cases, mostly in the rooms, wall papers are used, where besides geometrical patterns, a variety of other motives can be seen.

Lightening is a specific area of the interior architecture in Xenia hotels. The recess lightening is designed, integrated into the construction and structure of each place. In this way the specific architectural elements (colors, textures, recesses, etc) are emphasized. In the interior space the lamps used, especially in the bedrooms, are adapted to the design perspectives, usually placed on the walls, or standardized by the architect[22]. Wherever they are the lamps, usually made by a variety of materials, are simply formed and used to reveal the design’s aesthetics.

4. CASE STUDIES

The Xenia of Poros lies on a small peninsula called Neorio, facing the city of Poros and its hill, in an area surrounded by pine trees that end into the sea.

It is a work by A. Konstantinidis built at 1964 (Figure 11). The buildings have a south-east orientation, with capacity of 80 beds, and are developed in four wings of bedrooms, which are connected through the public spaces and the reception hall. The natural ground curves lead to high gradation and integrate a building height from two to four levels.

In the functional and morphological structure of the compound, with the use of grid, the enclosed and covered open spaces follow the built enclosed spaces. Thus two external balconies are created: one internal stone-built and a roof, covered occasionally with cane sun screens with a full view to the sea, are placed. This resort was the first to be assigned to the first private investor in 1981, and was renamed Poros Hotel. Today is under new management and is called Poros Image Hotel (Figure 12).

Most of the alterations of the buildings took place in an unknown time, probably during the first investor’s period, while some of them were made during the recent refurbishing in 2000. A new bedrooms’s wing was added on the ground floor. The organic unity of the interior and exterior spaces was ruined since the minimal natural materials used, which were optically connected to the architectural shell and the surroundings, were replaced by others without the same aesthetic quality. The refurbishment took away the total identity of minimal and clear morphology, as well as the truth of the constructive and decorative materials, that is to say the main design perspectives. The previous colors based on a warm gray color scale, in different tones, combined with olive green hues and contrasting with small amounts of minium-red at the iron railings, added to the environmental integration. In the present situation the colors are based on a cool gray color scale, with cyan and blue green shades, lighter on the walls and darker on the window louvers, the iron railings and cover structures, combined with pink salmon hues, which are also used in the interiors.

The interior space doesn’t remind A. Konstantinidis’ creation, and all the floorings, ceilings, materials, textures, coatings, modern style furniture, lamps, constructions, colors have been replaced by other, neutral and unstylish elements. (Figure 13).

The Xenia of Drama is a work by A. Konstantinidis’ colleague C. Stamatis, and was built in 1964. It is located in the urban center of the city and had two floors at first. In 1970 the hotel was leased to individuals. In 1979, a new floor was added, which doubled the Hotel’s capacity to 88 beds. Since then the compound has been refurbished three times. This hotel is included in the Association of Greek Architects proposal for being retained as part of modern cultural heritage, which has not yet been accepted. The exterior facades remain the same as they were. Even the colors used then seem to have been maintained, with small differentiations in hues and use of bright colors in the vertical iron elements of the balconies. However the interior space is completely mistreated. The colors, the materials used, the lightening, the coatings, the textures all reveal an ugly, kitsch perception of design choices that definitely do not support the modern ideas originally expressed. (Figure 14).

In many of the Xenia Hotels that were refurbished and that are still functioning, the interior space seems to be the most susceptible part of new design choices and the easiest way to point towards aesthetic options, that are however contrary to the original vision which established them as buildings of modern cultural heritage. Their interior spaces and original furniture were destroyed, or completely replaced, disrespecting the vision of their designers, as A. Konstantinidis mentioned in one of his last interviews[23] “The Xenia I have built are unrecognizable- the colors, the furniture everything has changed. And I began wondering why?”

In the Hotel Nafplia Palace, which first opened in 1979 and is part of three hotels ensemble, we can notice the influence of aesthetic templates deriving from Xenia of Nafplio, which was designed by I. Triantafyllidis in 1958 and remains abandoned[24].(Figure 17). In this case, it should be mentioned that in the pre-existing part of the hotel buildings, morphological characteristics of the interior and exterior facades have been preserved, such as the main entrance, the fire place (Figure 19) and the works of art in the public spaces, as well as the wooden furniture of the bedrooms. (Figure 18). This process has benefited the spaces’ aesthetics, as it reflects an authentic impression of modern post war interior architecture in Greece, basically through the bedrooms’ interiors.

5. CONCLUSIONS

Xenia hotels are prominent examples of post war public buildings in Greece. They represent an important part of the cultural heritage of modern Greece, reflecting the vision of a team of architects and their innovating ideas for tourism development of the country, based on the ethical model of compensating hospitality[25].

The Greek state should retain this built treasure that is the Xenia project as a part of the country’s history. And this act should include all the morphological and functional options of their designers: the shells, the inner and outer spaces with all their matching components, which comprises them – stable, moveable, variable, each expressing its individual form and characteristics. Preservation cannot be conceived of without considering the surroundings, the shells, the materials, the textures, the equipments, the lightening as indelible parts of the design process. The lack of one of them disturbs the balance of the entity and distorts the holistic procedure of the design, as well as the period expressed through it.

This is a fact revealed through case studies that in their majority through reconsidering the initial modern view led to a deformed aesthetics of a new image. Modernization doesn’t mean the change of the synthetic components but the conservation and retaining of these characteristics that compose the general picture. «Each material has its own voice and a low or high intonation. An Architect knows how to reveal this voice and make it resound by agreeably matching materials in a construction and placing them in their proper position. Composing his own music, the architect enables his creation to speak and sing to us and even offer us entire symphonies. Analogicallyeverynote should remain in place in this design symphony, contributing to the harmony of the sound.

The design options in the Xenia Hotels, besides others, reveal an issue of moral nature: the public architecture in contradiction to private architecture, according to A. Konstantinidis, allows for the transmission of authentic ideas and the expression of a “true architecture”, which signals the moral attitude of the architect as a participant and reflector of the social needs. Within the same morality the Xenia Project has defined the policy for tourism development, as a field for compensating hospitality, with the proper respect to the visitor. This policy includes the built environment, not only as a profitable developing area, left adrift at the hands of private investors, but also as a procedure with rules, boundaries and public control.

6. References

  • Konstandinidis A, (1975), “Elements of self-cognition for a true Architecture”, Athens: Ford Institution
  • Konstantinidis A, (1981), “Projects + buildings, A. Konstantinidis”, Athens: Agra Editions and A. Konstantinidis
  • Konstantinidis A, (1992), “The Architecture of Architecture- Diary Notes”, Athens: Agra ed.
  • Moussa M, (2012), “Xenia Project 1950-1967. Reapproaching the role of Post- War Modern Architecture in Greece”, Proceedings, 1rst International Conference on Architecture and Urban Design, 19-21 April 2012, Epoca University.
  • Themelis K, (2000), “The speech of the master, a conversation with A. Konstantinidis”, Athens: Indiktos ed.
  • Vrychea A, (2003), “Habitation and houses, investigating the boundaries of architecture”, Athens: Ellinika Grammata ed.


[1]1914 (Tourism Bureau), 1929 (Greek National Tourism Organization in a primary form), 1936 (Sub- Ministry of Press and Tourism), 1941 (Directory of Spa- Towns and tourism), 1945 (General Secreteriat of Tourism), 1950- today (Greek National Tourism Organization), 2004 as part of the Ministry for Tourism Development, and from 2010, as part of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism.

[2] As M. Moussa mentions “In a country ruined by wars, Architects and engineers had the mission to rebuild it, during the Era of reconstruction. Many constructions had to be made: housing for internal migrants, public facilities (hospitals, schools etc), private commercial buildings (shops, tourism accommodations etc), industry and infrastructures (roads, ports etc). Having a poor budget the Greek State had to hierarchize its expenses. ..Housing, leaving out a few exceptions, was left to private investors, …the infrastructures and public buildings were obviously a State affair, industry and commercial activities were private investment affairs,…. Private investors hesitated to invest on tourist accommodation, because the depreciation period of capital assets was too long (over 20 years). Consequently, the State had to take more radical actions. It was then that GNTO started the Xenia project; the one and only attend of the Greek state to create accommodation infrastructure for the development of tourism”. M. Moussa, (2012), “Xenia Project 1950-1967. Reapproaching the role of Post- War Modern Architecture in Greece”, Proceedings, 1rst International Conference on Architecture and Urban Design, 19-21 April 2012, Epoca University, p.4.

[3] During this period, many different types of tourist facilities were built, such as hotels (Nafplio, Poros, Mykonos, Andros, etc), motels (Olympia, Kalampaka, Larissa, Vytina, etc), tourist pavilions (Delfi, Xylokastro, Chalkida, etc) high way stations with accommodation (Itea, Mornos river, Mesologgi lagoon, etc), guest houses (Epidauros), spa-towns (Ypati), hostels (Osios Loukas Monastery, Meteora) and bungalows (usually situated in hotel compounds).

[4] Modern Architecture was established in Greece during the post-war period, adapted mainly in public buildings, sometimes within reconstruction programmes for schools, hospitals or social houses, with the participation of many architects who had studied abroad.

[5] The total number of the buildings produced within the Xenia project, was about 70 (GNTO archives)

[6] The Hellenic Republic Asset Development Fund’s was founded in 2011, with the mission to materialize a wide program for maximizing the proceeds of the Hellenic Republic from the development and sale of assets, in order to reduce the public debt burden.

[7] From a letter by the Association of Greek Architects (30517/11-6-2003) to the Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate Change, and the Ministry of Culture and Sports, for retaining the buildings of the Xenia project as cultural heritage.

[8] Bavarian Academy of Fine Arts (2008)

[9] “Most of the councilors were lawyers, a few members of the Council were engineers, and there were always an important architect of the time such as: Anastasios Orlandos, an international renowned Academic, and Periklis Sakellarios, who studied in Austria and Bauhaus too. Despite their conflicts, the members always respected each other. The Council often took decisions on architectural issues” Moussa M., (2012), ibid, p. 3.

[10] Because “all the natural materials get old beautifully, as time passes. On the contrary the artificial materials (all these that are produced by the industry) don’t grow old but become dirty, especially when they are left in open air. So they become ugly as opposed to an old stone, or a piece of wood which are abraded by the sun and the rain and the wind that become beautiful and warm” Konstantinidis A (1992), “The Architecture of Architecture- Diary Notes”, Athens: Agra ed., p. 229.

[11] Konstantinidis A, (1981), “Projects + buildings, A. Konstantinidis”, Athens: Agra Editions and A. Konstantinidis, p. 218.

[12] Ibid, p. 208-227

[13] Konstantinidis A, (1992), “The Architecture of Architecture- Diary Notes”, Athens: Agra ed., p. 229,

(20-9-1990).

[14] From the letter by the Association of Greek Architects (30517/11-6-2003), see footnote 6.

[15] Konstantinidis A, (1992), ibid, p. 333,20-9-1990.

[16] “Young and old in action” 1962, by O. Liaskos, includes shootings in Xenia of Poros, “Right- minded madman”, 1968 by K. Karagiannis, has shootings in Xenia of Lagonisi, etc, as Xenia hotels became famous places for socialization and recreation.

[17] Something that opened to international discussions, as early 1910, by a. Loos, Le Corbusier, P.Jeanneret, W. Gropius, etc, within an effort of disconnecting architecture from decoration- as a filler, and connect it with industrial production’s principles to a new aesthetic perception, with standardization as the main characteristic. A. Vrychea, (2003), “Habitation and houses, investigating the boundaries of architecture”, Athens: Ellinika Grammata ed., p. 317-349.

[18] Konstantinidis A, (1981), ibid, p. 228-233.

[19] http://issuu.com/sxoliastis/docs/xenia?e=0

[20] A. Konstantinidis’ ideas for architecture are focused on color-use with references for Knossos in Crete, Afaia in Aegina, anonymous folk architecture, and also the ancient painter Polygnotos, who is referred by Pausanias and Plinius. He used only four colors and their hues. This characterization doesn’t include indigo blue which came later to Greece, through India. A. Konstandinidis, (1975), “Elements for self-cognition for a true Architecture”, Athens: Ford Institution, p. 314-315.

[21] A. Konstantinidis, (1992), ibid, 10-6-1988, p. 333.

[22] A. Konstantinidis, (1981), ibid, p. 233.

[23] K. Themelis, (2000), “The speech of the master, a conversation with A. Konstantinidis”, Athens: Indiktos.

[24]The three hotels which consist of the Xenia of Nafplio were leased to private investors in 2000 for a period of 30 years. As it is reported by members of the Parliament, the leaseholder company functions and cashes in on the two of the three hotels, as the third one (designed by Triantafyllidis) remains closed, ten years after the execution of the agreement. The refurbishment of this hotel hasn’t taken place although this procedure was included as a term of the agreement. Additionally, although Acronafplia region is part of an archaeological area, which restricts new constructions, the hotel company has already built a new resort besides Nafplia Palace” Newspaper Avgi, by H. Miliou, 15/08/2010

[25] The term is suggested by Panagiotis Ilias. According to Greek Mythology Xenios Zeus was as the god protector of the laws, also protector of the visitors asking for hospitality. This institution has been continued into the Greek tradition. A premise for this is the mutual respect between the host and the visitor.