Multiple ‘homes’, dwelling & hyper-mobility & emergent ... Slovenia/W24_Paris.pdf · Professor Chris Paris, University of Ulster Paper to the ENHR Conference Ljubljana July 2006

1

Workshop 24 - Cross-border Second Home Ownership

Multiple ‘homes’, dwelling & hyper-mobility &

emergent transnational second home ownership

Chris Paris

[email protected]

Paper presented at the ENHR conference

"Housing in an expanding Europe:

theory, policy, participation and implementation"

Ljubljana, Slovenia

2 - 5 July 2006

2

Multiple homes, dwelling, hyper-mobility & emergent transnational second home ownership

Professor Chris Paris, University of Ulster

Paper to the ENHR Conference

Ljubljana July 2006

Abstract

Starting from current concerns in Ireland, this paper develops a perspective on the changing nature of second home ownership. The growth of housing wealth and extended spatial mobility in rich EU countries, as in other wealthy regions, has spawned explosive growth in the ownership of ‘second’ and more ‘homes’ across the EU and beyond. This paper explores aspects of the growth of transnational multiple home ownership by developing a discussion of issues and tensions relating to second homes: 1. conceptual and definitional issues regarding second homes; 2. diverse conflicts between ‘locals’ and second home owners; 3. the emergence of complex volatile transnational second home housing markets; and, 4. consideration of how greater mobility & consumption capacities are changing old debates about second homes.

3

1. Introduction

My interest in second homes derives from the explosive growth of second home ownership in both Northern Ireland (NI) and the Republic of Ireland (RoI). Second home ownership has become the subject of heated debate as numerous residents’ groups and politicians have campaigned against further development.

Concerns about visual impacts of second homes were been expressed for many years but intensified with the increased volume of new building. Second home owners buy most new housing in some areas as well as most second hand houses coming on the market in other areas. Locals complain that second home ownership causes rapid land and dwelling price inflation and forces young locals to leave the area. They argue that seasonal use of second homes imposes excessive demand on services, especially water and sewerage, and causes traffic congestion; meanwhile the falling number of permanent residents results in closure of shops, schools and services so coastal settlements are ‘ghost towns’ for much of the year.

Other concerns relate to strategic planning for housing provision. It is agreed that some newly-constructed houses are built for or purchased as second homes and some dwellings that were previously primary residences are purchased for use as second homes. Questions about how many new homes are purchased as second home, and/or existing homes are removed from the primary stock by second home owners, are difficult to answer with any degree of reliability. This uncertainty has strategic and local significance in terms of estimating future housing demand and land allocation within local plans. At the strategic level it is clear that some net additional housing is used as second homes: but how much? At the local level, surveys show that second home ownership is spatially concentrated, so the local implications for land release are highly sensitive.

A review of the literature, however, has shown that these issues have been debated for many years elsewhere, with a huge literature on second homes, including scholarly, professional and other research and commentary. The topic is often explored in the media and on thousands of internet sites. The recent growth of second home ownership across international borders is particularly striking.

Following Coppock (1977a) most scholarly writing on second homes derives from leisure and tourism studies, rural studies, planning and cultural studies (Gallent et al 2005; Hall, 2005; Hall & Muller, 2004; Hettinger, 2005); the ‘housing’ literature contains little about second homes. Five recent overviews of UK housing say little about the topic apart from brief references to national parks (Bramley et al, 2004; Lund, 2006; Lowe, 2004; Malpass, 2005; Mullins & Murie, 2006).

This paper considers debates about second home ownership with a developing focus on the growth of transnational home ownership. Sections 2 and 3 discuss conceptual and definitional issues and debates about conflicts between ‘locals’ and second home owners. Sections 4 and 5 consider international aspects of second home ownership, including the growing transnational dimension, and ask whether recent developments mark a new phase in second home ownership

4

2. Conceptual and definitional issues

What is a ‘second home?

Many writers on second homes have considered conceptual and definitional questions. Coppock (1977b) argued that second homes are not ‘a discrete type’ as ‘the dynamic character of the second home, in particular the changing relationship between the first and second home…makes identification and measurement difficult’. He noted a continuum from tents and caravans ‘not generally regarded as second homes though they fulfil many of the same functions’ to ‘the large country house which serves as an occasional residence but is permanently staffed’ (loc cit).

Two recent books have largely echoed Coppock’s earlier commentary (Gallent et al, 2005; Hall and Muller, 2004). One recurring problem in trying to define and/or count second homes derives from their transient and fluid nature. As with tenure categories, the status of ‘second home’ refers to how dwellings are used rather than constituting an enduring characteristic of dwellings. Such use, however, can change frequently over short periods of time. Enumerators are thus trying to define and count moving and changing targets! In some cases there may be planning conditions or restrictive covenants supposedly limiting use to non-permanent occupation but in practice such conditions are difficult or impossible to enforce and are often ignored.

Most commentators distinguish ‘primary’ residences, occupied most of the time by households, from ‘second homes’ used occasionally and mainly for leisure purposes by household members and/or family and friends on a non-commercial basis. ‘Second homes’ thus differ from ‘holiday homes’ usually let out as short-term leisure-related accommodation (Coppock, 1977b). There are often institutional bases for distinctions between ‘primary’, ‘second’ and ‘holiday’ homes, including the number of days of rental income required before tax is chargeable on such income. Inherent within this perspective on second homes is that they are ‘luxury’ goods (Gallent et al, 2005: 62).

Few commentators define the ‘primary’ or ‘first’ home; rather it is generally taken for granted that all except ‘homeless’ households have a ‘primary’ or ‘normal’ residence. National censuses use terms like ‘usual place of residence’; the UK census definition of ‘second residences’ includes ‘company flats, holiday houses, weekend cottages…in permanent buildings which were known to be the second residences of people who had a more permanent address’.

When housing analysts have considered the notion of ‘the home’ they have almost always followed the census’s implicit assumption that there is one such place for each household (Lowe, 2004). Others, however, have explored the notion of multiple residences and the ownership of many ‘homes’ (see below).

Most definitions of second homes try to distinguish between permanent and non-permanent structures, often only including the former, and exclude tents, caravans,

5

boats or other mobile structures1. Part-time second home ownership, as in timeshares, may not be identified in second homes statistics and can be complicated by different forms of tenure. Tenure categories, as well as legal systems and practices, also vary significantly between countries thus second home buyers in overseas countries thus may need to pay particular attention to the warning caveat emptor!

The question of when a dwelling is a ‘second home’ also blurs attempts to fix categorical definitions. Some are used often, including most week-ends and holidays, but others are used much less often or sometimes let out on commercial basis. For example, a seaside house may be occupied by its owners for weekends and some holidays but rented as ‘holiday’ lettings at other times.

How many second homes?

Definitional difficulties are compounded by problems associated with attempts to count the number of second homes, especially if surveys or censuses are conducted at times when dwellings are unoccupied or used seasonally in a different way (e.g. let to holiday makers or students). Wallace et al (2005: 29) discussed research on empty dwellings in Scotland and suggested that ‘many properties identified as being vacant were in fact being used as holiday homes’, suggesting a likely widespread tendency to under-count the number of second homes.

Definitions in different countries may or may not include significant numbers of potential candidates (e.g. canal boats). The same terms, moreover, refer to different things in different countries (in Australia the terms ‘holiday home’ and ‘second home’ are interchangeable). Different national census agencies and official surveys use widely varying definitions for many aspects of housing; many do not consider second homes at all. The treatment of tenure in defining second homes also varies between countries with some only including owner-occupied structures.

Another difficulty involved in assessing the number and location of second homes relates to owners’ motivations for defining their properties as ‘primary’ or ‘second’ residences. In some cases tax or other advantages have accrued to one or other definition. Gallent et al (2005: 10) suggested that weak or non-existent statutory guidance about ‘what constitutes a second home leaves the system open to abuse or honest misinterpretation’. Different analysts, moreover, may interpret the same phenomenon in different ways. Birch (2006) complained that official statistics under-estimated the number of second homes because couples owning two dwellings each claimed one of them as their main residence to avail of single person’s rate of council tax in each dwelling; he noted other ‘scams’ including classifying second homes as small businesses to avail of lower council tax. Discussing the same issues, in contrast, the Sunday Times Money section referred positively to ‘tax perks’ (Francis, 2006a).

1 Mobile homes or caravans permanently on site are counted as second homes in some countries.

6

The quality of data on second homes varies enormously between countries in terms of what is collected, the questions that are asked, definitions used and the reliability of data. This makes international comparisons difficult, especially over time, and in some cases literally impossible. Gallent et al (2005: 92) provided estimates of the level of second home ownership in Europe between 1970 and the mid-1990s but warned that an apparent fall in the proportion of second homes in some countries was ‘due to overestimation of the phenomenon in 1970 and then underestimation in 1980 and 1988’! They were confident, however, that the UK and the RoI had among the lowest levels of second home ownership.

In practice and over time, therefore, distinctions between second homes and other dwelling use are blurred and changing. It is fruitless trying to derive precise comparative measures of levels of second home ownership in different countries over time. All that can be done is to understand the strengths and weaknesses of different data sets, use consistent definitions where possible and make judicious comparisons qualified by the merits of available data.

Second homes in the UK and Ireland

Good data on second home ownership in England are collected biannually in the Survey of English Housing (SEH), including both where second home owners live and also where their second homes are located. The SEH shows that the number of households with second homes increased from 329,000 in 1994/95 to 502,000 in 2003/04. Most second homes were in England, especially in the South West, South East and London. Most households with second homes had household reference persons in older age groups (45<), mid to high household incomes, and their second homes were for holiday use, future retirement and/or investment.

We have to use the census and house condition surveys for data on second homes and vacant dwellings in other UK jurisdictions. On that basis, we estimate there were about 5,000 second homes in NI in 2001, where house condition survey data showed rapid growth between 1996 and 2001: 65% overall equal to about 5% of total stock growth. There are no official statistics on second homes in the RoI as the census only covers occupied dwellings. Recent estimates suggest that second homes and other vacant dwellings accounted for 30% of all new housing between 1996 and 2002, with more in areas of high demand along the ‘Atlantic seaboard’ (McCarthy et al, 2003; FitzGerald, 2004) with second homes representing an increasing share of new housing construction (NESC, 2004).

3. The impacts of second homes: conflicts with ‘locals’

Concerns about the impact of second homes often have been expressed in terms of conflicting interests of ‘locals’ and ‘outsiders’. Such concerns were especially acute in some cases when second purchase crosses national borders, for example in the Welsh countryside where second homes owned by ‘English’ people were fire-bombed! Similar concerns, although expressed in more moderate forms, have been articulated in Ireland about overseas-based second homes purchasers as well as purchase by NI residents of second homes within the RoI.

Many long-standing debates about second homes in Britain have been about the same issues currently debated in NI and the RoI: how second home ownership affects local housing markets in terms of costs and availability; whether and/or

7

how the impact of second homes should be regulated; and who should bear what costs associated with changing local communities. Such debates have stimulated policy review in central government departments, the ODPM and DEFRA, and are considered in the report of the Affordable Rural Housing Commission (2006).

Gallent et al (2005) emphasised that the impact of second homes is often strongly contested and that they are rarely the only factor affecting a town or region. Their position echoed Newby’s (1979: 175) discussion of the demise of villages as occupational communities as economic restructuring in agriculture led to labour-shedding and rural depopulation. Thus the ‘middle-class exodus from the towns to the countryside’ was a symptom of change rather than the cause of change; even so, second home owners may be particularly resented:

In areas where the inflation of house prices has made it impossible for many local people to obtain their own homes, the sight of outsiders purchasing houses when they already have one elsewhere can be an affront to local dignity…it is not surprising that the local population becomes angered. Their children have little prospect of finding any housing in their village when they wish to set up their own homes. The locals must leave, while houses in their village remain locked and empty for months at a time (Newby, 1979: 176-177).

Second homes in changing seaside and rural areas

Many commentators have noted overlaps between growing second home ownership, greater use of the countryside and coast for leisure activities, changing lifestyles, retirement migration and counter-urbanisation. For example, Robinson (1990) saw the growth of second home ownership in the countryside as an element of counter-urbanisation, considering most second home owners to have permanent homes in urban areas. He also emphasised positive aspects of second home ownership, citing an example on the island of Arran where almost 1/3 of dwellings were second homes and most second home owners employed islanders as part-time cleaners, gardeners and caretakers. Despite positive aspects of second home ownership, Robinson argued that, as with ex-urban incomers into commuter villages, ‘the very presence of second home owners alters existing situations’ as new residents compete for property with ‘local first-time buyers or renters’ (op. cit: 123).

In their introductory chapter Hall and Muller (2004) also noted that many studies have recorded benefits of second home ownership to local economies, especially as an antidote to declining primary sector employment and depopulation of remote areas. Second home owners may contribute significantly to local tax revenues but consume few municipal services. Many second home owners favour expenditure within the local economy of their second home.

Butler (1998) argued that greater leisure use of the countryside reflected many inter-related social changes including higher disposable incomes, changing tastes and fashions, widespread car ownership and growing dissatisfaction with ‘urban’ environment. He also argued that ‘urban’ activities were not the sole driver of change in the countryside as increased leisure use had been facilitated by wider processes of rural restructuring. Such changes also affected many former fishing villages and other coastal settlements across the UK and Ireland. House price growth in Britain during the 1990s included a strong east-west differential which

8

commentators associated with high demand for second homes in picturesque western coastal villages and adjoining areas (Halifax Estate Agents, 2005b). Kendall (2006) reported ‘an East-West divide as smart money goes into holiday hot spots’. British seaside areas are changing, but with strong variations: ‘hot spots’ of coastal village gentrification or new marina and other leisure-related development contrast sharply with seedier down-at-heel former working class resorts often typified as home to welfare recipients and asylum seekers.

Some of the most remote parts of Britain are home both to households with very high and very low incomes; high levels of disadvantage and social exclusion are obscured by low population densities and wide spatial spread of poor households (DETR, 2000; North Harbour Consulting Limited, 2005; Wilcox, 2004). Second home ownership in remote areas, together with retirement migration and increased long-distance commuting, in a context of tight planning restrictions, has resulted in some of the highest high house-price to income ratios in the UK. Halifax Estate Agents (2005b) reported that first time buyers were ‘priced out of the countryside’; North Cornwall was the least affordable rural local authority in England with average house prices nearly 14 times average local earnings.

These concerns are explored in the final report of the Affordable Rural Housing Commission (2006) which considered a range of policy options including vexed questions relating to social housing in such areas, especially as ‘right to buy’ sales have been highest in the countryside. It also considered issues relating to opposition to more social housing by affluent households (see also Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2006). Ironically, the literature shows that retirees and gentrifiers in coastal or rural areas are often strong opponents of further second home development (possibly to boost their own investment, though few may articulate their cause in that way!)

Many ‘locals’ complain about the growth of second homes because they believe that this process is changing places. In other cases, however, second homes were an element in making ‘places’, often in previously-unsettled coastal areas. In Australia, for example, ‘pioneer’ self-built second homes in unsettled coastal zones were often followed by subsequent consolidation and growth into distinctive settlements and increasingly dominated by commercial development

Large fully-commodified second home developments, often including rental holiday homes and retirement accommodation, have become widespread in many countries. Such developments often take the form of gated ‘communities’, for example in attractive waterside areas in the Cotswolds (England) where former gravel pits are transformed into designer lakes for sailing or fishing and lovely golf courses come as part of the deal. In other instances there has been both change and the creation of new kinds of ‘place’. Diamond (2005: 34) suggested that much of the local economy of the American state of Montana has been transformed:

…hunting and fishing have shifted from a subsistence activity to a recreation; the fur trade is extinct; and mines, logging and agriculture are declining in importance…the sectors of the economy that are growing nowadays are tourism, recreation, retirement living and health care.

9

Diamond described a former stock farm of 26,000 acres that was developed as second homes for rich people from other states ‘who wanted a second (or third or fourth) home in the beautiful valley to visit for fishing, hunting, horseback riding, and golfing a couple of times each year’ (loc cit). Land prices escalated and locals were replaced by ‘immigrants’ whose externally-generated incomes kept them immune to the economic difficulties experienced by local working people (2005: 60) Many immigrants were ‘half-retirees’ or had retired early ‘supporting themselves by real estate equity from their out-of-state homes that they sold, and often also by income that they continue to earn from their out-of-state or Internet businesses’ (loc cit). Meanwhile Montana schoolteachers’ salaries are too low for them to buy homes in the area and locally-born children leave Montana ‘because many of them aspire to non-Montana lifestyles, and because those who do aspire to Montana lifestyles can’t find jobs within the state’ (Diamond, 2005: 63).

In other cases, common in Britain from the 1960s through 1980s, second home cycles began with the purchase of abandoned or dilapidated dwellings in the countryside and moved on through purchase of existing occupied dwellings coming on the market, often in places where new building was constrained by planning regulations. Coppock (1977c) argued that many Welsh houses acquired as second homes in the 1960s were old and unmodernised in areas of depopulation. Although their new owners restored vacant or derelict structures, they were vilified by militant locals. In 2006, however, such debates are anachronistic: few cheap abandoned dwellings remain to be converted as most houses in the Welsh countryside are priced on the basis of hugely inflated expectations.

Second homes in cities

There is strong evidence of substantial second home ownership in metropolitan areas with the 2003/04 SEH showing a concentration of second homes in London. Many inner city second homes are used mainly during the working week. Direct Line (2005) predicted growth in ‘work-related’ second home ownership in central London and other regional centres.

There are also signs of growing ownership of second home for leisure use in cities. Direct Line (2005: 6) identified key factors as ‘affordability, accessibility, economic growth’ as well as the beauty of a city’s hinterland and its proximity to London. Commentators also have identified growth in coastal cities such as Brighton or buoyant continental locations, especially Barcelona.

The purchase of second homes in cities reinforces the idea that leisure second homes ‘markets’ overlap seamlessly with housing markets. Metropolitan second homes may be perceived to offer potential for capital gains as well as flexible future options including sale to owner occupiers or investors, or retaining as an investment and letting privately, including letting to students, or as ‘holiday’ lets.

Who are ‘locals’?

Many commentators have demonstrated the weakness of using a crude and simplistic dichotomy between ‘locals’ and ‘outsiders’, implying that a relatively unchanging and harmonious set of relationships existed ‘before’ the growth of second home ownership. ‘Locals’, however, rarely if ever constitute a

10

homogenous group whether measured along social, economic or demographic dimensions. Some are much richer than others. Some are employers whereas others are employees or unemployed. Some are the owners of splendid homes whereas others are tenants of private or social landlords and some may be homeless. Some locals benefit by selling land at enhanced value for housing development, whether for second homes or permanent residence. Other locals are builders, solicitors, surveyors and estate agents. Some sell goods and other services to second home users as well as incoming commuters and retirees.

Second home users may comprise a significant element of local demand for other tourism and leisure services such as restaurants, bars and other food and beverage suppliers, shopping streets and centres, golf courses, gambling, eco-tourism and more. Other locals, including those who moved to an area on retirement, may resent the growth of other leisure activities and markets. Overall, therefore, there may be as many if not more differences within any specified community of ‘locals’ as between ‘locals’ and second home owners.

There are elements of return migration in many instances of second home ownership, for example immigrants to the UK from the Caribbean or Ireland purchase land or dwellings in their place of origin, to use initially as a second home or investment property with a longer-term plan to return ‘home’ on retirement. Questions about the definition and interests of ‘locals’ are further complicated when considered over time and involving second and subsequent generations. The children or grandchildren of ‘locals’ who left many years ago may have emotional attachments to areas, especially parts of Ireland which experienced massive net out-migration during and after the Famine. Second, third or subsequent generations may thus perceive a ‘local’ connection transcending distances in time and space.

Many of the problems associated with second homes are the result of a change in scale and increasing overall demand: ‘As the supply of more accessible properties diminishes, prices rise and prospective purchasers look further afield’ and ‘what may have been tolerated on a small scale becomes intolerable when numbers increase sharply, especially when there is a greater awareness of the environmental consequences of such developments’ (Coppock, 1977b: 11). Questions relating to planning control are double edged because ‘even tight planning control cannot avoid the social frictions which acquisitions of existing properties create (the more so as the market for first and second homes cannot easily be separated)’ (Coppock, loc cit). As planning control becomes tighter, ironically, it also becomes harder for lower income ‘locals’ to find a place to live.

Conflicts between ‘locals’ and incoming second home owners appear to be more acute when there is a cross-border dimension. The example of Welsh opposition to English second home owners, which culminated at one stage in a spate of fire-bombings, has been widely reported. Other writers note conflicts between locals in one country and wealthier second home purchasers from other countries, for example Germans in Denmark. With increasing transnational second home ownership, therefore, local resentments of outsider second home ownership may be expected at times to erupt in conflict, in some cases taking dramatic and violent forms.

11

Overall, the impacts of second homes on both places and ‘locals’ are contested, diverse, and changing over time (Gallent et al, 2005). Such relationships must be conceptualised as webs or networks of interaction, frequently changing over time, rather than in terms of simple and unchanging binary opposites.

4. International variations and transnational second home ownership

There is a substantial literature on international variations and an emerging literature on transnational dimensions of second home ownership (especially Coppock, 1977a; Hall and Muller, 2004); Gallent et al, 2005). The literature on international variations mainly dates back to the 1960s, with well-documented traditions of regional or local second homes in many European countries: Nordic ‘summer houses’, usually located by sea or lakes; ‘country’ homes in Southern Europe, in higher and cooler countryside around cities, often on land inherited from family. In these cases there does not appear to have been significant displacement or competition with ‘locals’. There have been relatively permissive planning approaches to second homes in Nordic and Mediterranean countries, as well as former Spanish and Portuguese colonies in South America; this has also been the case in the RoI and to a large extent NI. Widespread development of second home ownership in new world countries (USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand), often through self-provision, has also occurred within relatively permissive planning regimes.

Gallent et al (2005) suggest that the development of second homes in Britain and the Netherlands, by way of contrast, has been constrained by restrictive planning, especially in rural areas. They distinguished between local/regional and long-distance second home ownership, suggesting that the former was more common in most European countries but the latter prevails in Britain. Long-distance second home ownership also appears to be widespread in the USA and other new world countries, where artisanal second homes often constituted an element in developing previously-unsettled areas and where widespread car ownership came earlier than in Europe.

There is considerable diversity over time and between places: differences in politics, society, economy and, geography run through local histories of second home ownership and must be taken into account in any international comparisons. Differences between countries in terms of planning and other regulatory systems constitute a key variable affecting differences in the development of second homes. Different planning regimes and their treatment of second homes, moreover, may relate to varying cultural attitudes and the extent to which second home ownership is class-based or widely distributed socially. Some of the sharpest conflicts occur where a restrictive planning or regulatory system imposes strong constraints on additional development and thus any growth of second home ownership can only occur through the purchase of existing dwellings.

The self-provision of second homes seems to be increasingly less the norm, especially in cross-border developments, where large developers typically lead second home and resort projects, often combined with other leisure and commercial developments: shopping centres, golf courses and marinas. In many cases, recent literature on second homes in the USA, Canada and Australia reveals new conflicts between ‘locals’, sometimes themselves retirees, and developers and further incoming second home owners. For example, Green (2004) bemoaned the

12

destruction of the distinctive character of the Great Ocean Road on the western coast of Victoria, Australia.

The commercial development of second homes and resorts was examined in detail by Hettinger (2005) with an analysis of four case study areas in the USA and Canada. These ‘tourism communities’, spatially separate from other settlements, had high proportion of jobs in leisure/tourism: two ski resorts and two booming up-market coastal settlements. Hettinger’s sub-title ‘Why housing is too expensive and what communities can do about it’ captured the essence of his study and his policy analysis and proposals reflect the context of work in countries with small social housing sectors and where community organisations can assist locals into affordable home purchase or low cost rental with no risk of losing such stock through a ‘right’ to buy.

Has globalization affected the nature and spread of second home ownership?

There has been rapid growth of second home ownership across national borders as residents of rich countries purchase houses, apartments, villas, mansions and country estates. Rising disposable incomes and growing housing assets in rich countries have enabled the ‘export’ of second home owners to lower cost housing markets in ‘importing’ regions. Booming wealth in ‘escalator’ areas, wealthy established global cities and their regions (London, New York, Los Angeles and Tokyo), has enabled residents of these areas to shop globally for second homes and other overseas investments (Forrest, 2005). This is not exclusively a ‘western’ issue as many wealthy Asian households buy second homes across national borders, for example Singaporeans buying in Malaysia, and new buoyant capitalist super-rich residents of post-communist economic hot-spots (Moscow, Shanghai and Beijing) shop globally for additional ‘homes’ (as well as football teams).

Growing transnational second home ownership was documented in England by the 2003/04 SEH which showed that ownership of overseas second homes had increased much faster than within Britain: from 91,000 in 1994/5 to 178,000 in 2003/04, with the largest shares located in Spain (35%) and France (24%). The Direct Line (2005) study predicted that the number of British owners of overseas second homes would increase from 178,000 in 2005 to 249,000 in 2015.

Transnational second home ownership has been driven by many factors. Properties are, or were cheaper in destination countries, though growing demand can change price gradients rapidly. Planning restrictions are less restrictive in some importing countries, especially in comparison to Britain, the Netherlands or Germany. Some second home buyers are attracted by warmer climates, though this may be exaggerated by marketers of second homes who rarely if ever mention hurricanes, tropical diseases or antagonistic ‘locals’. Overseas second home ownership is often linked to longer term intentions relating to retirement relocation or migration; as with counter-urbanisation from UK metropolitan areas there could be an element of ‘white flight’ in some of these developments.

Promotional activities by large estate agencies such as Savills (www.savills.co.uk) or Hamptons (www.hamptons.co.uk) often operating across many countries, together with other ‘boosters’ (TV programmes, newspaper property supplements and airline magazines) extol the virtues of overseas property investment. The organisation Overseas Property Expo advertises in newspapers and on the internet

13

(www.overseaspropertyexpo.com) and holds frequent exhibitions. Potential investors in overseas property were encouraged to ‘Buy an overseas property with as little as £15,000’. They advertised properties in France, Spain, Portugal, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Turkey, the USA, the Bahamas, Morocco and Cape Verde. This group mainly markets properties as ‘investments’ to let, rather than second homes, though the distinction between these categories is blurred and intangible.

The property sections of national UK newspapers reveal rampant growth in overseas second home ownership. In September 2005, for example, a supplement2 in The Times featured famous sporting personalities extolling the virtues of overseas property investment. Dozens of advertisements proclaim the virtues of a staggering array of opportunities in Cyprus, France, Spain, Italy and South Africa, as well as ‘superb value tropical holiday homes’ in Thailand, luxury apartments in Dubai and Kuala Lumpur, ‘perfect sea views’ in Bulgaria, ‘superb chalet residences’ in Switzerland and ‘five star relaxation’ in a resort development in Newfoundland, Canada. Columnist Sarah Marks (2005: 30) reported that ‘dedicated amateurs’ search the globe for investment properties:

Five years ago only professionals were interested in overseas property investment. Then the toe-dipping amateurs arrived on the scene(…)today a new breed is buying not just one property but building sizeable foreign holdings. Asia, the Caribbean, South America, the former communist states – it does not matter how far away it is as long as the investment logic is sound’ (op. cit).

The falling real cost of air travel and the growth of budget airlines serving new locations have also contributed to interest and investment in second homes across Europe and beyond. Airline magazines routinely carry feature articles and extensive advertising on second homes and retirement relocation; vendors of timeshare and second home accommodation sit in wait in airport lobbies. The internet, with its huge search capacity, provides endless opportunities to advertise and look for second homes across the globe. Linked to this, ironically perhaps, local economic development strategies and advertising campaigns designed to attract tourists may also attract second home purchasers.

Transnational second home ownership has also been facilitated since the 1970s by restructured international relations within globalised economic and social relations. Changing relations between countries, EU expansion and the democratisation and development of free markets in former communist countries have made it easier for citizens of one country to purchase homes elsewhere. Mortgage finance is easier to access across borders and many second home buyers are in any case already asset-rich. Agents and developers selling second homes predict high levels of capital gain and highlight relaxed lifestyles, easy-going environments, and, in many cases, physical security (typically in gated communities). Advertisements stress life-course opportunities and encourage retirement or migration strategies.

Strangely enough, advertisements never seem to mention that second home developments may be resented by poor ‘locals’ or that any other risks may attach

2 Overseas property, Bricks and Mortar supplement The Times 16 September 2005.

14

to such property investment. Issues of equity and choice, however, come into sharper focus as the growth of transnational second home ownerships brings greater differentials of incomes and wealth between ‘locals’ and second home owners (Smith & Duffy, 2003). Citizens of different countries have hugely different capacities to be mobile, both in terms of the financial costs of mobility and differential rights to mobility (relating to national jurisdictions etc). In some countries it may be easier for non-nationals to buy a second home, to come and go more freely than nationals and to be regulated by different rules and legislation (legal access to alcohol, tax free shopping opportunities etc). Some countries, actively seek transnational investment by second home purchasers, for example Malaysia and Dubai, but other countries, notably Australia, impose barriers to second home ownership by non-citizens.

The extent to which second home and holiday accommodation developments are sustainable in the longer term will be affected by many factors, including taxation policies and practices of national governments and multi-national institutions, especially the EU, as well as fuel costs, especially aviation fuel. There are also question marks over the longer-term sustainability of local housing markets with high proportions of second homes. The 2005 annual RICS review of European housing markets for the first time included a chapter on ‘the second home boom’ and discussed the growth and impact of second home ownership across Europe. This noted the traditions of second home ownership in some countries and examined rapid growth of a possible ‘holiday home bubble’ bursting in the event of any economic downturn.

The RICS review suggested (2005: 14) that local markets with high proportions of second homes may be much more volatile than ‘primary’ housing markets for four reasons: ‘demand is more discretionary than primary home markets’; lenders may take a tougher line on defaults; ‘there is no fallback demand’; and, ‘the supply side is more likely to transmit volatility’. The report did not predict major problems ahead in second homes markets but warned (p.35) that ‘the longer the second homes markets boom, the greater is the chance that shocks will lead to serious short-term declines’.

5. Transnational second home ownership in an era of hyper-consumption

This section introduces two overlapping themes: second homes within individual and household investment strategies; and, from a growing literature in sociology, cultural and tourism studies, consideration of changing patterns of mobility, social organisation and orientation to places of residence.

Investment strategies and second home ownership

Many scholars have noted that many people purchase second homes as an element of their life-course planning and personal or family investment strategies (Coppock, 1973b; Hall & Muller, 2004; Gallent et al 2005; Smith, 2005). Second homes are often bought with a view to eventual retirement and there may be a phase of semi-retirement, ‘until the second home becomes unambiguously the first’ (Coppock, 1977b: 3). At this stage the former ‘primary’ residence represents an asset which can be liquidised through sale or let privately to generate an income stream. Thus what was an item of leisure consumption becomes the ‘primary’ home facilitating the utilisation of assets accumulated in the previous

15

‘main’ residence. Retirement migration may be over relatively short or long distances and may take diverse forms combining early retirement or pre-retirement lifestyle change.

The idea that owning a second home is an investment recurs strongly across the literature. As well, however, the literature also identifies second homes as items of leisure consumption. Thus second homes are distinctive leisure/consumption items: house prices usually appreciate, albeit largely as a function of increased land values, whereas most consumption goods depreciate in value (caravans, boats, RVs etc). There are no meaningful barriers between ‘housing’ and ‘leisure’ markets, apart from regulatory requirements or contractual arrangements (either or both of which may frequently be ignored in practice). It is a matter of personal choice, albeit partly influenced by legal and regulatory cvonditions, whether and when a particular dwelling is used as a second home for personal consumption, and/or to let on a commercial basis to other leisure users (‘on holiday’) or private tenants as an investment. Any appreciation in value depends on overall market trends, not whether the dwelling is conceptualised as a second home for personal consumption or as an investment for financial gain.

Many ‘boosters’ of second home sales claim that such investments will increase in value well above the rate of inflation, though such claims may be based more in wishful thinking or salespersons’ hype than sound business planning. Media and other commentators often suggest that there is a growing preference for investment in property (buy-to-let private rental housing, holiday homes to let and second homes) rather than pensions or the stock market (e.g. Francis, 2006b).

Such investment has increasingly taken a transnational dimension, fuelled by the growth of housing assets and disposable incomes in rich countries. Greater levels of mobility, both personal and of financial assets, are resulting in massive expansion of leisure-related investment and consumption (Forrest, 2005). Smith (2005) recently argued that housing wealth ‘is no longer a fixed asset’ but ‘is mobile in all kinds of ways’ (p. 9). She suggested that low interest rates and the low cost of secured loans combined to make borrowing against the primary residence an easy and highly cost-effective way of funding spending. The available funds, moreover, appear to be massive: ‘With estimates of unmortgaged housing equity now standing at £2.2 trillion, this is a significant resource’ (loc. cit). She suggested that equity withdrawal may be routinely utilised as ‘a part of households’ financial management’, although she emphasized that very little was known about these processes.

To the extent that second home owners and landlords, including owners of holiday rental accommodation, compete with others in planning-restricted housing markets, they must constitute an inflationary pressure so that there is a real causal relationship, between problems of affordability for lower-income households and first time buyers. This is the case whether in ‘local/regional’ second home markets or long distance and transnational markets where second home owners and their sources of wealth and income bear no relationship to the site of second home consumption. In the latter cases, however, the gulf in wealth and income may be wider and involve major cultural differences and potential clashes between second home owners and locals.

Residence, mobility and consumption

16

A substantial literature, largely in sociology and tourism studies, has related both directly and indirectly to aspects of second home ownership. This work has also emphasised growing mobility and enhanced capacities for consumption in affluent societies, including extensive consideration of the changing nature of tourism as a vital element of enhanced mobility (Hall, 2005; Urry, 1995, 2000, 2004; Sheller and Urry, 2004). This literature emphasises how places are created, changed and ‘consumed’ by tourists and other leisure users. One of Urry’s recurring themes is of the creation of distinctive kinds of ‘places’ as locales for consumption through ‘cultural production’ involving tourism and tourism-related industries and actors. For example, he reviewed the transformed image of the English Lake District from an area that was considered unpleasant, uncivilised and hostile to an area of ‘natural’ beauty that is highly valued by a wide cross-section of society (Urry, 1995). The creation of the very notion of ‘nature’ was itself thus viewed as a cultural production, as was the relatively recent development of the notion of ‘leisure’ and both combined in aesthetic approaches to ‘landscape’ which are typically presented in romanticised pastoral forms (Urry, 1995: 211-214)3.

This literature also considers contradictory dimensions of tourism mobility and especially that many tourists ignore possible dangers associated with tourism and leisure consumption. In the concluding chapter of a work sub-titled ‘Places to play, places in play’, Urry (2004: 213) commented that ‘Potential death and the fear of death stalk almost all the places that are examined in this book’. Many second home purchasers in overseas countries have little if any appreciation of the socio-legal context within which they are buying, for example regarding inheritance rights or taxes on wealth and/or property.

Contributors to the sociological and tourism literatures also explore variations in the use of dwellings over time and between household members: daily, weekly, seasonally, and over life courses. Sociological perspectives on ‘first’, ‘second’ or more ‘homes’ suggest that such categories are increasingly anachronistic, especially for more affluent households. Hall (2005) argued that time-space structures have changed enormously over the last 25 years. He suggested that ‘because of advances in transportation and communication technology, for a substantial proportion of the population in developed countries or for elites in developing countries being able to travel long distances to engage in leisure behaviour…is now a part of their routine activities’ (Hall, 2005: 24). Hall also referred to ‘dense sets of social, cultural and economic networks stretching between the two ends of the mobility spectrum from daily leisure mobility through to migration and thereby promoting the development of transnational communities in which movement is the norm’ (Hall, 2005: 25). Thus, Hall argued (2005: 95-

3 This is consistent with established bodies of writing on the countryside and landscapes of Britain and Ireland by historians, geographers and sociologists. Many have emphasised that few parts of the British or Irish countrysides are wholly ‘natural’, apart from the wildest moor-lands, mountains and estuaries, because virtually every part has been affected by many centuries of human use and occupation (Aalen, Whelan and Stout, 1997; Hoskins, 1955; Rackham, 1986). Many studies have explored changing relations between town and country through analyses of the impact of changing systems of production and consumption, including agrarian and industrial revolutions which changed the countryside and villages from occupational communities to residential areas, increasingly after 1950 being dominated by middle class commuters, retirees, and second home owners (Newby, 1979, 1987; Pahl, 1965; Williams, 1973).

17

96) that as individuals ‘develop close relationships to multiple localities’ this throws into question the very notion of a single ‘home’.

Many writers on tourism and second homes emphasise diversity, changing preferences and fashion as well as strategic action by individuals and households. Quinn (2004) argued that many people in Ireland dwelled through ‘multiple residences’. She viewed second home ownership as an extension of ‘modernity’, as ‘a modern solution, facilitated by increasing affluence and mobility, to a modern problem: the sense of placenessness and insecurity associated with time-space compression’ (p. 117). Thus she considered ‘second home ownership is part of an adaptation to dwelling in modernity that relies on multiple belongings between two, or possibly more, places of residence’ (loc cit). Second home owners in her Wexford study used their properties ‘with remarkable regularity’ (p. 125) and most were more relaxed in their second homes that their ‘primary’ homes; hence their lives involved ‘multiple associations with places’ (p. 127). She argued that we must question ‘the historically accepted notion that the practice of holidaying and the location of the holiday destination are clearly distinguishable from the rhythms, practices and places associated with home life’ (p.129).

The way in which ‘dwelling’ is conceptualised, finally, differs within some sociological literature from the usage by most writers within housing studies who tend to view dwellings as physical objects4. Urry (2000), drawing explicitly on Heidegger, conceptualised ‘dwellings’ as social practices not as physical objects; thus ‘dwelling’ is what people do rather than particular physical structure. This way of conceptualising ‘dwelling’ emphasises fluidity and change in contemporary social uses of physical structures and the associations that are attached to them.

Widespread demographic changes in terms of household formation and the mix of household types, together with more frequent breaking and blending of households, may require the abandonment of linear models of standard ‘life cycles’ and ‘housing careers’. The core message of this literature is the need to conceptualise the use of dwellings as fluid, changing and in many cases highly transient.

Demographic changes, combined with economic and labour market restructuring, are resulting in emergent cohort effects and the life experiences of current young people will play out in changing contexts over time. The past experiences of second home ownership, especially artisanal self-build during an era of low mass mobility, bear little resemblance to emerging forms including both large scale commercial development and more diverse individualistic developments, whether by the rich or more ‘bohemian’ seekers of ‘alternative’ life styles.

Socio-economic and demographic changes are also associated with flexible life styles and life style choices, greater mobility and emphasis on individualism, especially for wealthy individuals and households despite increased actual or perceived risk (Bauman, 1995). These developments include greater hedonism and capacity to consume, in a period described by Lipovetsky as ‘hypermodernity’

4 Urry uses the term ‘dwelling’ as a verb rather than a noun.

18

where fashion reigns supreme but individuals are torn by doubts, anxieties and uncertainties, apart from the ever-present drive to consume:

Anxieties about the future are replacing the mystique of progress. The present is assuming an increasing importance as an effect of the development of financial markets, the electronic techniques of information, individualistic lifestyles and free time. Everywhere the speed of operations and exchanges is accelerating; time is short and becomes a problem looming at the heart of new social conflicts. The ability to choose your time, flexitime, leisure time, the time of youth, the time of the elderly and the very old: hypermodernity has multiplied divergent temporalities (Lipovetsky, 2005: 35; emphasis added).

In his commentary on Lipovetsky’s work, Charles (2005: 11) suggested that contemporary societies exhibit signs of ‘hyperconsumption’ transcending even the narcissistic individualism of the 1980s. He defines hyperconsumption as ‘a consumption which absorbs and integrates greater and greater portions of social life’ and which is driven by ‘an emotional and hedonistic logic which makes everyone consume first and foremost for their own pleasure rather than out of rivalry with others’. The powerful logic of these arguments in relations to second homes is simply that they are objects of desired consumption purely for the sake of consumption by the individuals and households consuming them. ‘We do because we can.’

7. Conclusions and questions

Many writers have re-visited Coppock’s thematic question about whether second homes are a curse or a blessing. There consensus appears to be increasingly that they may be both but that there is no single answer as situations vary considerably. Questions about distributional aspects of second homes suggest that one person’s blessing may be precisely another person’s curse. There is considerable fluidity between definitions, numbers, functions of dwellings –these are often shifting shapes with no solidity.

There have been many myths and misconceptions about second homes, especially seeing them as sole cause of changes, such as booming markets or structural homelessness. There are causal relationships between second home ownership and local issues of concern, but such relationships vary enormously between places and over time and their actual impact in particular places should be seen as an empirical question rather than assumed to result from a standard cause-effect relationship.

There are clearly many international and local variations, though there also appear to be global tides of developer-led second home development in various forms. One crucial variable appears to be the nature and impact of planning restrictions on the development of second homes.

There is a rapidly growing transnational dimension to second home ownership as developments are strongly marketed by big businesses and many small businesses. Does this mark a new phase in second home ownership as wealthy investors and consumers from rich countries greedily consume attractive places in poorer countries or regions? What are the implications in terms of sustainability, both environmentally and socially, of high concentration of second homes, especially

19

in large commercial developments? What are the implications of dependence on oil-based mobility? Will there inevitably be endless culture and/or class clashes between wealthy global consumers and poor residents of places being consumed in this frenzy of hyper-consumption?

References

Aalen, F (1997) The challenge of change, in Aalen, F, Whelan, K & Stout, M eds. Atlas of the Irish Rural Landscape (Cork: Cork University Press). Aalen, F, Whelan, K & Stout, M eds. (1997) Atlas of the Irish Rural Landscape (Cork: Cork University Press). Affordable Rural Housing Commission (2006) Final Report (London, Affordable Rural Housing Commission). Ball, M (2005) RICS European Housing Review 2005 at http://www.rics.org Ball, M (2006) RICS European Housing Review 2005 at http://www.rics.org Bauman, Z (1995) Life in Fragments: Essays in Post-modern Morality (Oxford, Blackwell). Birch, J (2006) The great second homer swindle Roof May/June pp. 22-24. Bramley, G., Munro, M. & Pawson, H. (2004) Key Issues in Housing: Policies and Markets in 21st Century Britain (Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan). Bowler, I R, Bryant, C R & Nellis, M D (1992) Contemporary Rural Systems in Transition (Wellington Oxfordshire, CAB International). Butler, R (1998) Rural recreation and tourism, in Ilbery, B The Geography of Rural Change (Harlow Essex, Pearson Education). Coppock, J T ed. (1977a) Second homes, curse or blessing (Oxford, Pergamon Press). Coppock, J T (1977b) Second homes in perspective, ch. 1 of Coppock, J T ed. Second homes, curse or blessing (Oxford, Pergamon Press). Coppock, J T (1977c) Social implications of second homes in mid- and north Wales, ch 10B of Coppock, J T ed. Second homes, curse or blessing (Oxford, Pergamon Press). Coppock, J T (1977d) Issues and conflicts. ch. 14 of Coppock, J T ed. Second homes, curse or blessing (Oxford, Pergamon Press). DETR (2000) Indices of Deprivation 2000: Ward level Presentations (London, DETR). Diamond, J (2005) Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive (London, Penguin). Direct Line Insurance (2005) Second Homes Report (London, Direct Line.) Dower, M (1977) Planning aspects of second homes, ch. 11 of Coppock, J T ed. Second homes, curse or blessing (Oxford, Pergamon Press). FitzGerald, J (2004) The Irish Housing Stock: Growth in the Number of Vacant Dwellings [original source to come] Forrest, R (2005) Globalisation and the Housing Asset Rich: Geographies, Demographies and Policy Convoys, paper at the APHNR Conference, Kobe, Japan, August 2005. Francis, C (2006a) Families with second homes set to double Sunday Times 30 April, Money Section p. 1. Francis, C (2006b) Investors dump shares to buy property Sunday Times 4 June, Money Section p. 1.

20

Gallent, N, Mace, A and Tewdr-Jones, M (2005) Second Homes (Aldershot Hampshire, Ashgate). Green, R (2004) Sea change on the Great Ocean Road, Landscape Australia Vol. 26 pp. 73-77. Hall, C M and Muller, D K eds. (2004) Tourism, Mobility and Second Homes (Clevedon Buffalo and Toronto, Channel View Publications). Hall, C M (2005) Tourism: rethinking the social science of mobility (Edinburgh Pearson). Halifax Estate Agents (2005a) First time buyers priced out of the countryside press release 29 July 2005. Halifax Estate Agents (2005b) We do love to be beside the seaside press release 29 August 2005. Hettinger, W S (2005) Living and Working in Paradise: Why Housing is Too Expensive and What Communities Can Do About It Windham, Connecticut, Thames River Publishing) Hoskins, W G (1955) The Making of the English Landscape (London, Hodder & Stoughton). Kendall, O (2006) It’s an East-West divide as smart money goes on holiday hot spots The Times April 14 pp. 8-9. Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2006) Homes for Rural Communities available at www.jrf.org.uk Lipovetsky, G (2005) Hypermodern Times (Cambridge, Polity Press). Lowe, S (2004) Housing Policy Analysis (Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan). Lund, B (2006) Understanding Housing Policy (Bristol, Policy Press). McCarthy, C, Hughes, A & Woelger, E (2003) Where have all the houses gone? Davy Stockbrokers Malpass, P. (2005) Housing and the Welfare State (Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan). Marks, S (2005) The serial investors, The Times Bricks and Mortar supplement 16 September 2005 p. 30. Mullins, D and Murie, A (2006) Housing Policy in the UK (Bristol, Policy Press). NESC (2004) Housing in Ireland: Performance and Policy (Dublin, NESC Newby, H (1979) Green and Pleasant Land? Life, A Social History of Rural England (London, Penguin). Newby, H (1987) Country Life, A Social History of Rural England (London, Penguin). North Harbour Consulting Limited (2005) Living with Physical and Sensory Impairment in Rural Areas (London, Housing Corporation and North Harbour Consulting Limited). Pahl, R (1965) Urbs in Rure (London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson). Quinn, B (2004) Dwelling through multiple places: a case study of second home ownership in Ireland, ch 8 of Hall, C M and Muller, D K eds. Tourism, Mobility and Second Homes (Clevedon Buffalo and Toronto, Channel View Publications). Rackham, O (1986) The History of the Countryside (London, Phoenix Press). Robinson, G (1990) Conflict and Change in the Countryside (London and New York, Belhaven Press). Rowan, A (1979) North West Ulster Buildings of Ireland series (Harmondsworth Middlesex: Penguin). Sheller, M & Urry, J eds. (2004) Tourism Mobilities (London and New York, Routledge).

21

Smith, M & Duffy, R (2003) The Ethics of Tourism Development (London and New York, Routledge). Smith, S J (2005) Banking on housing? Speculating on the role and relevance of housing wealth in Britain, paper for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation Inquiry into Home Ownership 2010 and Beyond, available at www.jrf.org.uk Urry, J (1995) Consuming Places (London and New York, Routledge). Urry, J (2000) Sociology beyond Societies (London and New York, Routledge). Urry, J (2004) Death in Venice ch. 18 of Sheller, M & Urry, J eds. Tourism Mobilities (London and New York, Routledge). Wallace et al (2005) The impact of empty, second and holiday homes on the sustainability of rural communities: a systematic literature review (York, Centre for Housing policy) Wilcox, S (2004) Affordability differences by area for working households buying their homes – 2003 update (York, Joseph Rowntree Foundation). Williams, R (1973) The Country and the City (London, Chatto & Windus).