The tourist facilities of G.T.O. form an index mark in the course of Greek architecture. In terms of time, this building programme coincides with the time of reconstruction of the country soon after the 2^nd World War and the termination of Civil War. During this period, progress is being made at the sectors of economy, social providence and culture. At the same time, special emphasis is laid on the phenomenon of tourism as a profitable factor of catalytic importance to the financial recovery of the country. A reinterpretation takes place that led to the re-establishment of G.T.O. at the early ‘50s.  What follows is a summary retrospection of the historic evolution of hospitality and the parallel typological transformation of similar places.

 Afterwards, a lengthy reference of the building programme of G.T.O. is made. The typology, the logic, the materials, the elements and the selection of the building plot are all examined as designing principles which in the mass govern the tourist facilities of G.T.O..  Special reference is made to the heads of the homonymous technical service, the architects Charalampos Sfaellos and Aris Konstantinidis, who associated their names with “Xenia” chain and redefined the “greekness”  of the construction, approaching the folklore-traditional architecture through a different viewpoint. Within the framework of our research, we present the “Xenia” units as well as the rest of tourist facilities of North Greece, the tourist stands, the camping sites and the bath facilities. This reference focuses on the elements that differentiate the buildings one from the other and at the same time add a particular character.

 Special reference is made to the high level hotels like “Hilton”, “Mont Parnes” and “Macedonia Palace”, as well as the city hotels. A pre-eminently private initiative which forms a typological variation of Nikos Valsamakis’ block of flats.

 One of the most characteristic elements of the buildings of our field of research is their relationship with the landscape and their accession, their articulation in it. A relationship that is unbreakably connected to the look of the creator–architect, their initial intention as well as the way they themselves impress the final project photographically, that is the building. An agreement which reinterprets the dipole of “tourism–image”.

 Finally, a reference is made to the condition of the units today, their diachronism and the role they are playing in the local societies they belong to. In this way, their architectural value is determined and issues come up that concern their maintenance and the way it can be accomplished.