| 5,391 permits |
5.276m m² permitted area |
1,459 completed objects |
1.546m m² completed area |
|---|
Georgia’s construction data for the first half of 2026 appears stable at first glance: the number of permits fell by only 0.6%, while permitted floor area increased by 1.7%. Yet the regional map tells a more consequential story-where new projects are being initiated and where previously launched construction is now reaching completion.
One country, two construction maps
Between January and June, Georgia issued 5,391 construction permits covering 5.276 million square metres. During the same period, 1,459 objects with a combined total of 1.546 million square metres were commissioned. Permitted area was 3.4 times completed area, but this is not a direct pipeline ratio: current permits represent the option to start work, while completions often originate from permits issued in earlier years.
This creates two distinct maps. Tbilisi dominates the permit map with 49.2% of all permits, followed by Kvemo Kartli at 9.2%, Adjara at 7.6%, and Kakheti at 7.3%. Together, the four territories account for 73.3%.
| Region | Share of permits | Share of completed objects | What it indicates |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tbilisi | 49.2% | 31.9% | Largest centre for project starts |
| Kvemo Kartli | 9.2% | 10.0% | Relatively balanced start/completion profile |
| Adjara A.R. | 7.6% | 3.4% | Permit share exceeds completed-object share |
| Kakheti | 7.3% | 12.1% | High share of completed objects |
| Mtskheta-Mtianeti | 6.5% | 15.1% | Standout region on the completion map |
Note: Shares refer to the number of objects, not floor area or investment value. Source: Geostat; BTU calculations.
The completion map looks different. Tbilisi remains first, but its share falls to 31.9%. Mtskheta-Mtianeti moves into second place with 15.1%, Kakheti follows with 12.1%, and Kvemo Kartli ranks fourth with 10.0%. Together, they represent 69.1% of completed objects.
Tbilisi initiates; the regions account for more completions
Tbilisi’s share of permits exceeds its share of completed objects by 17.3 percentage points. Mtskheta-Mtianeti shows the reverse pattern: its completion share is 8.6 points higher than its permit share. The gap is 4.8 points in Kakheti, while Kvemo Kartli is broadly balanced.
These differences do not prove that construction is necessarily faster or slower in any region. Project size, type and duration vary sharply. A multi-apartment development and a private house each count as one object, despite being incomparable in floor area and investment value.
Even so, the map offers a useful signal about phases. Tbilisi is the largest concentration point for new initiatives. The high completion shares of Mtskheta-Mtianeti and Kakheti indicate that a meaningful portion of projects launched earlier is now becoming usable physical stock. In Adjara, the gap between a 7.6% permit share and a 3.4% completion share may reflect the structure of larger, longer projects, but confirming this requires detailed floor-area and building-type data.
The number of projects is decreasing, while the average scale is growing
Average permitted area was about 979 square metres per permit, compared with approximately 957 square metres in the same period of 2025. The combination of a 0.6% fall in permit numbers and a 1.7% rise in permitted area suggests a modest increase in average project size. It does not establish a wholesale shift toward large complexes because the aggregate includes commercial, hotel, industrial, agricultural and other structures alongside housing.
The completion side is more cautious: the number of commissioned objects fell by 5.3% year on year and their floor area by 3.6%. The average completed object measured roughly 1,060 square metres. The faster decline in object count than in area may also indicate a size effect.
What the map means for the economy
The construction map is not simply a housing map. Permits cover multifunctional residential developments, retail facilities, hotels, industrial plants, agricultural structures and other buildings. Rising regional construction can therefore signal simultaneous expansion of housing supply, tourism capacity and productive infrastructure.
According to BTU researchers, the central implication is that Georgia’s spatial development can no longer be explained only through Tbilisi’s growth. The capital remains the main centre for project initiation, but Mtskheta-Mtianeti, Kakheti and Kvemo Kartli account for sufficiently large shares on the completion map to make the emergence of regional economic spaces a process that must be measured separately.
Opportunity and risk
The opportunity lies in planning regional infrastructure on time. Where many objects are being completed, demand for roads, water, electricity, public services and commercial infrastructure can also rise quickly. For businesses, new markets often materialise when buildings are completed-not merely when permits are issued.
The risk lies in reading headline numbers too literally. A high permit share does not automatically mean high-value investment, and 5.276 million square metres of permitted area does not mean all of it will be built quickly or at all. The National Bank of Georgia has noted that the previous increase in permits for multi-apartment buildings kept supply elevated while demand normalised as the migration effect faded. This does not apply uniformly across the country, but it makes joint monitoring of permits, sales, prices and population change essential.
The main conclusion
Georgia’s construction map reveals several parallel processes rather than one national wave: a strong concentration of project starts in Tbilisi; a large share of completions in Mtskheta-Mtianeti and Kakheti; a relatively balanced start-and-completion profile in Kvemo Kartli; and a wide gap between permits and completions in Adjara. The next useful question is no longer only “where is the most construction taking place?” It is what kind of space is being created, for whom, and whether the local economy can absorb it.