While the housing crisis intensifies and finding affordable accommodation becomes a daily struggle for thousands of households, Greece’s real estate market reveals one of its most striking paradoxes. According to the 2021 census, the country has 2,277,615 vacant residential properties, representing 35% of the total housing stock, while in Attica, where pressures are most intense, the percentage stands at 24%.
Why is the number of vacant homes so high
Despite this seemingly enormous stock, it doesn’t easily translate into a solution for housing needs, nor can it automatically function as a pressure valve for prices. The reason is that a large portion of vacant homes isn’t actually available to meet current needs. Many are vacation or secondary homes, others are located in rural areas with limited job opportunities and services, while many aren’t immediately habitable, requiring significant investments for renovation and energy upgrades. Thus, the problem isn’t the overall lack of housing, but the shortage of suitable homes where there’s genuine and intense demand.
Meanwhile, the social and demographic landscape is changing. Household sizes are shrinking, single-person and small households are increasing, while family formation is being delayed. This development strengthens demand for smaller apartments, mainly in urban centers with good access to transportation, employment, and services, creating strong pressures precisely on a housing category that’s already limited. In this environment, every property that remains closed intensifies the imbalance between supply and demand.
The institutional framework operates within this dynamic. Taxation, legislation, and bureaucracy critically affect the cost of ownership, investment, and rental, shaping owners’ behavior. Property tax (ENFIA) remains a basic source of public revenue, limiting room for generous tax interventions, while public investments in transportation and urban regeneration increase the attractiveness of specific areas and attract buyers, often without corresponding increases in housing supply. Digital transaction systems through myPROPERTY and the digital Land Registry have significantly improved procedures, without eliminating delays. Processes like electronic property identity are still considered time-consuming and costly, especially for small owners, deterring those considering activating a closed property. Similarly, in the rental field, despite mandatory three-year lease duration, excessive and poor legislation, combined with uncertainty around procedures for addressing rent defaults, intensify the sense of insecurity.
For many owners, the risk of a property becoming “blocked” without income outweighs potential benefits, reducing willingness for long-term rental and pushing toward inaction. The problem becomes even more complex considering that Greece historically lacked strong housing policy institutions. The abolition of the Workers’ Housing Organization in 2012, amid the crisis, marked the end of the most massive social housing programs, leaving an institutional void that hasn’t been filled by a permanent and comprehensive mechanism to this day. Within this framework, findings from the 5th Real Estate Market Barometer gain particular significance, presented at the “Greece 2026. Business, Real Estate, Investments” event by investor and analyst Elias Papageorgiades, capturing not only market pulse but also citizen expectations in Athens and Thessaloniki.
The research documents shrinking actual demand, as only 4.37% of respondents say they plan to buy property within the next 12 months, while sellers are nearly double the buyers. Simultaneously, the housing problem is almost universally recognized, with 89% of citizens characterizing it as quite or very significant.
Generous energy upgrade subsidies a critical factor
Particularly interesting is that 17% of respondents say they own a property they keep closed. When these owners are asked what could lead them to put their property on the market, a network of incentives emerges clearly. Reducing tax burden is mentioned as the most significant factor, while generous subsidies for energy upgrades are considered almost equally critical. At the same time, special emphasis is placed on owner protection measures, which could limit risk and restore confidence in long-term rental.
A significant percentage of owners say they prefer to wait for further price increases before moving, treating property as investment stock, while a smaller but steady segment makes clear they don’t intend to open their closed home for any reason, regardless of measures. This shows that even the most generous interventions cannot activate the entire stock, but can release a critical portion of it.
The conclusion is that activating closed homes cannot rely on a single policy. It requires combining lasting tax incentives with substantial support for renovations and energy interventions, but mainly institutional protection that reduces owner risk. Without these prerequisites, millions of vacant homes will continue to coexist with a market struggling to meet basic housing needs, transforming housing from an economic issue into a front-line social challenge.
Published in the Money pro supplement of “Parapolitika”
