CC BY
4M
AYBÜ
KÜLLiYE
ULUSLARARASI SOSYAL BiLiMLER DERGiSi INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
Impacts of Second Homeownership for Mixed Neighbourhoods*
Karibik Mahalleler ifin ikinci Ev Sahiplerinin Etkileri
Yazar / Author
Yahya AYDIN**
1. Introduction
THE convenience of becoming a member of a neighbourhood during a period of increasing attachment to a place is mainly discussed within the literature in terms of such concepts as "length of stay". Therefore, it would be better to focus on the existing literature in terms of this aspect. In the study by Elias and Scotson (1994), the participants were similar in terms of status, ethnic descent, colour, and race at inner small residential area. Rather, the authors classified the individuals into two groups: established residents and outsider residents. Established residents used their social station, case history, and social "oldness" as a means to manage and stigmatise newcomers and/or outsiders. Additionally,
* Bu makale Southampton Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Fakültesi, Sosyoloji bölümünde savunulan "Location Matters. The Role of Belonging and Place-Making among Owner-Occupiers, Tenants, Landlords and Second Homeowners in a Neoliberal Waterfront Area: The Case of Ocean Village, Southampton" adli doktora tezinden üretilmi^tir.
** Ögr. Gör. Dr., Ankara Yildirim Beyazit Üniversitesi, insan ve Toplum Bilimleri Fakültesi, Sosyoloji Bölümü, Ankara / Turkiye, e-mail: aydin.yahya.tr@gmail.com. ORCID : https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5082-0187.
Bu makaleyi §u §ekilde kaynak gösterebilirsiniz / To cite this article (APA):
Aydin, Yahya (2020). "Impacts of Second Homeownership for Mixed Neighbourhoods". Külliye,
1 (1): 24-41. Makale Bilgisi / Article Information:
Geli^Received Kabul / Accepted Türü / Type Sayfa / Page
31 Ocak 2020 9 Mart 2020 Ara^tirma Makalesi 24-41
31 January 2020 9 March 2020 Research Article
outsiders were suspected of being virtuously inferior, unclean, alienated and deviant (Elias-Scotson 1994). Once newcomers selected this tiny English city in Leicestershire, they upset access to the nearby job market. However, existing residents enjoyed their lifestyles, and, unsurprisingly, indicated a preference not to move from their current living areas; the main differences between established and outsiders emerged due to their length of stay in the same living area. In the same context, Savage et al. (2005) specified the relationship between different groups inside a given neighbourhood is associated with their length of stay and feelings of nostalgia for their area. Furthermore, in Watt's (2009) investigation, because of growing numbers of newcomers, existing residents enrolled their children in alternative schools or switched to other kinds of social activity. Depending on their length of stay, the existing residents would, to some extent, reorganize their daily lives within the same area. According to these accepted studies within the literature, the length of stay in the current house has a striking effect on individuals in terms of advent of social relationships. Long-term citizens' belonging affects their link with newcomers and making their place.
Lastly, one should note that in this examination, the length of stay within the contemporary urban environment not a striking distinction between people due to communities' and humans' selections are extra distinct and complex. Within the current urban context, it is especially difficult to categorise individuals based solely on their length of residence.
25
2. Homeownership Trend in the UK
The distribution of residential groups is a considerable factor in terms of understanding the contemporary situation in the housing market. Briefly, changes to housing polices have resulted in alterations in the distribution of tenure groups in the UK. The 1979 Right to Buy (RTB) government subsidies have additionally contributed to increasing numbers of homeowners. Additionally, there have been extensive changes in housing market, which includes the 1991-1992 recession; the Buy to Let (BTL) housing policy introduced in 1996, the economic crisis in 2008-2009, and the 2013 Help to Buy (HTB) housing policy may all be considered significant factors influencing the English housing market over the last 30 years. Official records illustrate that from the 1980s to the mid-2000s, the number of homeowners expanded from 65% to 70%; however, the percentage of owner-occupiers remained entirely stable at 70% at the beginning of the 2000s. In particular, after 2008, there was a significant decrease in the percentage of owner-occupiers within the UK. Furthermore, the percentages of renters, mainly private renters, have increased since 2000. Thereafter, while the variety of homeowners increased, renting, especially in social housing gradually declined until the 2000s. Additionally, due
to growing housing prices, current renters and new generations struggled to purchase their own properties, and the gap between homeowners and renters widened.
Figure 1 The distribution of the percentage of owner-occupiers and renters (both social and private) in the UK from 1981 to 2015
09 11 13 -15
Owner occupiers Social housing renters Private housing renters
Source: Department for Communities and Local Government: Tenure trends and cross tenure analysis: Table FT1101 (S101): Trends in Tenure, 2016.
In other words, giving a subsidised mortgage and decreasing the interest 26 rates for such individuals is particularly important for above statistic. However, while the main motive for establishing those housing rules was to support lower class people or renters in their efforts to purchase their own properties, they were ultimately of much greater benefit to existing proprietors or to more affluent people. While interest in these housing policies has increased considerable, at the same time the number of tenants, mainly more youthful tenants, is increasing within the UK. For these reasons, in this section I focussed in particular on second property owners to clarify this case and existing trend in second property owner studies. As Saunders recent examination in 2016 confirmed, there may have been an increase in the quantity of second home owners within the UK (from Middle East, Hong Kong, Russia), especially in London, because of buy to let opportunities. While he highlighted this case in his book, his study neglected the sociological perspective, in the sense of due consideration for the relationship between local people and second homeowners, and second property owners' reference to the region and neighbourhood environment. For these reasons, it is essential to clarify second homeowners' situations in light of the existing literature.
3. Second Homeownership
According to official statistics, namely the Survey of English Housing (SEH), there is an increasing trend of second homeownership in England, and
where second homeowners are located. The official statistics indicate that the number of second homeowners has been increasing since the 1990s, for instance from 329,000 in 1994/1995 to 502,000 in 2003/2004 and 744,000 in 2013/2014. Second homeownership has become popular in England and, in particular, in London and the South East and South West of England. According to this, investments, holiday homes and retirement homes emerged as amongst the most frequent reasons for such ownership. Second homeownership is strongly associated with mid- to high-earning levels and older age groups (over 45, in the main between 45 and 64). These statistical facts illustrate the overall distribution of second homeowners in England and the growing trend from the 1990s to 2013/2014. Based on this, it is not possible to ignore second homeownership when exploring tenure groups.
The above data clearly shows that while the number of second homeowners has been increasing in the UK since the 1990s, Saunders, as a well-known housing and urban researcher, did not discuss this issue in his 1990 study, highlighting it as a new situation in 2016. However, when we look at the housing literature, Coppock (1977a), in his influential collection, "Second homes: curse or blessing?" focussed on significant questions about second homeownership. According to Coppock's study findings, environmental impacts and social inequality were the main result of second homeownership, in addition to this, as a result of second homeownership, poor permanent residents in rural areas fragile because of neocolinasation by elite second homeowners (Coppock 1977a). Generally speaking, Coppock (1977a) focussed on the "curse" aspect rather than the "blessing" in his study, supporting his idea with examples from the mid and north Welsh countryside such us local people being pushed into renting, the establishment of new buildings which are harmful to the environment, and a changing local environment. To clarify, Coppock stated his negative view about second homes as follows: "One of the most striking features of the development of second homes is the variety of interests involved and extent to which these interests are actually potentially in conflict." (Coppock 1977b: 195).
However, this well-known study's assumption like while second homeownership established negative results for local people, all locals and outsiders have the same interests and priorities. As opposed to Coppock, Hall-Muller (2004) noted that second homeownership can contribute to increasing local job opportunities while having little effect on municipal services, and contributes to increased demand for tourism and leisure facilities (e.g., shopping streets, restaurants, bars, golf courses, eco-tourism). Similarly, Paris (2007) noted that because of increasing second homeownership, the number of local leisure facilities and leisure activities are increasing, and these opportunities are open to both locals and outsiders. In addition to this, there are many overlaps (e.g., use and attach to the place) between second homeowners and local permanent
27
residents, though there are, of course, certain differences between these groups (Paris 2009). Based on these two different views, it is difficult to claim that all people, both locals and outsiders, and all places are affected to the same extent or show the same reaction to second homeownership.
Another important point is that most second home studies have focussed on rural areas to examine the second home development and its impact on local areas with regard to local people and outsiders. As noted above, in 1977, Coppock mainly focussed on rural areas and highlighted negative points (curse) more than positive points (blessing). In the same way, Shucksmith (1981), in his book "No Homes for Locals?", discussed the problems in terms of local people who are living in rural areas; because of the popularity of second homes in English countryside villages, as housing prices have increased, housing stock has been consumed by outsiders. Shucksmith (1990) supported his ideas with examples from the Lake District and Scotland. The local people's lived problem was one of finding rental houses that were not suitable for their budget and, at the same time, increasing land prices resulted directly in increased house prices. While the local people were living this kind of problem within their living area, owners were trying to preserve the value of their property in this environment (from lower class or homeless people) (Shucksmith 1990). Similarly, Shucksmith (1991) highlighted the same aspects (e.g., renting, housing stock problems or housing price problems due to second homeowners) ten years after the first study 2g in terms of local people living in rural areas and their connection with outsiders (second homeowners) in terms of housing prices and social life.
However, in contrast to the above studies, there are a number of studies highlighting not only negative aspects but also discussing certain positive aspects. In other words, in contrast from the initial studies into second homes, recent studies have focussed more on both "curse" and "blessing" at the same time. Gallent (2014) noted that while local rural life has social values before second homeowners, but at the same time second homes contribute or extend to social values in these kinds of areas with the value of second homeowners' social values.
In the same way, second homes help to bring new skills and increased knowledge to rural areas. Ellingsen (2017) examined rural areas in Norway, which is a significant example in terms of popularity of second homes, as a case study to investigate the importance of second homeownership in local communities between 1950 and 2010. While the number of second homeowners was less than that of permanent residents, second homeowners contribute to the local economies to a greater extent than permanent residents (ibid: 241-242). This fact notwithstanding, second homeowners were still mainly perceived as guests or outsiders by the local municipality or residents, in spite of their contributions to local life (ibid: 242). These examples from the literature show changing trends
with regard to second home studies. While scholars initially focussed on the "curse" aspect, recent studies are considering the "blessing" aspect that arises due to second homeownership. Based on the above examples, it is possible to see both aspects in rural areas with regard to second homes, but the reactions to and perceptions of second homeowners continue (e.g., guests or outsiders).
While the above studies mainly focussed on local or permanent residents' views about second homeowners, it is of course necessary to consider second homeowners' views and perspectives pertaining to the meaning of second homes and places so as to adopt an appropriate holistic approach. This is necessary to better understanding both local and second homeowners' reactions and views about each other. Muller (1999) examined how German second homeowners prefer Sweden as the location for their second home. According to this study, selecting a second home became easier with the internationalization of the economy and globalisation of culture; in addition, distance to the main home is another significant factor affecting German people's choice of Sweden as a location in which to buy their seconds home (Muller 1999). Another important aspect highlighted by Hall-Muller (2004), based on different cases around the world, is the importance of the accessibility of the second home as a reason for choosing it. "Comfortable accessibility" is important, especially for weekend homes, in terms of access to the second home in order to easily take short breaks or holidays (ibid: 129). 29
In addition to this, in contrast to the above examples, Norris and Winston (2010) examined second homeowners' preferences in the Republic of Ireland as one of the more popular areas for second homeowners based on official survey data (European Union Survey on Income and Living Conditions 2006). In general, based on the existing literature, the second homeowner's preferences could be said to be for one of three reasons: escapism, investment and retirement. According to this study's findings, in the case of Ireland affluence is the most important factor for second homeowners' decisions to choose Ireland as a place to live temporarily (Norris-Winston 2010). In contrast, living in a densely populated urban area or age (e.g. close to retirement) are less important factors than affluence when selecting a place to live (ibid. 563). Based on these various studies, in different time and places, second homeowners showed different reasons for their selection of a place to live. As noted at the beginning, the majority of studies focussed on countryside/rural areas to examine second homeownership in the UK and other countries (e.g. Norway, Sweden, Iceland, and Ireland). In addition to this, based on the above statistical information, the trend in second homeowner is increasing in the UK and other countries. There is a parallelism between this situation and globalisation and internationalisation. In light of this entire situation, the coastal (marina) area and recently established neighbourhoods like Ocean Village might be different from old rural villages in
terms of second homeowners' preferences and their connections with the place and other people in that place.
Another important point is that the above examples from the second home literature all assume that all local people and outsiders (second homeowners) are representative of the same reaction to other people and the same views about the place and environment. It is difficult to generalise people according only to their residential status, as can be seen from the above examples' various and disparate findings about the same tenure groups (second homeowners and local/permeant residents). Lastly, as Paris (2009) noted, the majority of second home studies have focussed on tourism, while only a few of them adopted a sociological perspective.
4. The Case of Ocean Village, Southampton
As noted in the previous section, the south of England is one of the more significant destinations after London for second homeowners. Therefore, the redeveloping waterfront area of Ocean Village in Southampton offered us the means to answer the research question posed by this paper regarding its location, local environment, and its tenure groups coming from different backgrounds in terms of age, nationality, occupation and education. Further, a vibrant and mix-developing area includes residential, leisure and work facilities at the same time. It has been redeveloping since the 1980s. The photo below, which was taken in 30 the 1980s and shows the first years of construction in this area.
Figure2 Ocean Village in the 1980s. Source: https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/11028794.21-long-forgotten-nights-clubs-in-southampton/ [Accessed 29.01.2020]
According to the Office for National Statistics (ONS) 2017, 1281 people lived in this area. While 43.1% of the population in this area are owner-occupiers, over 50% are renters. Currently, there are nine restaurants and bars, one cinema, a five star hotel, a yacht club, residential buildings and offices in Ocean Village. The leisure and work facilities are open for both Ocean Village residents and non-residents. The photo below illustrates the dramatic change the area has undergone over the last thirty years.
Figure 3 Ocean Village in 2018. Sources: Photo taken by author 04.08.2018.
5. Methodology
Field studies started after the ethical approval (number 23711) had been obtained from the Ethics Committee of the University of Southampton. All data were collected after giving interviewees an explanation of the purpose of the study, the rights of the participants and the confidentiality of their personal information, and having subsequently gained their approval. These rules were followed before, during and after the fieldwork. The mixed method approach was used in the research. It can be claimed that it is difficult to make the balance between each method during the analysing the original data and it is also difficult to combine the two approaches due to disjuncture among the two when actual cases of study are examined (Bryman, 2006). However, the mixed method allows a better understanding to the issues being studied than either the quantitative or qualitative methods only with its triangulation and complementarity approach (Creswell and Clark, 2007), and permits researchers to contact different participants in different ways. For that reason, firstly, a survey was conducted
with 177 participants. Then, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 42 people from among the initial survey participants. In general, there is a participant profile between the ages of 22-75, with approximately equal numbers of men and women attending, 70% of whom are higher education graduates, participants from 27 different countries, and who define their economic situation as being 'comfortable'. In other words, the participants come from various different backgrounds, which is important in terms of the validity and reliability of the research. Additionally, the participants' personal information was anonymised such as name, age, occupation, nationality, etc. Pseudonyms were used to anonymise the participants' names.
Following the completion of the field study, first impressions of the findings were formed by preparing reports about the interviews of at least five or six pages each. Later, interviews that were recorded with a voice recorder were transcribed and categorised with sub-categories such as economy, investment, location, security, and society.
Lastly, the survey data were analysed using SPSS whilst the interview data were analysed with the NVivo analysis program. These analysis tools allowed the data to be analysed more systematically and accurately without missing any important detail.
32
6. Analysis of Findings _
6.1. Length of Stay and Second Homeownership
In each of my questionnaires and interviews, tenants and landlords usually had only recently (normally after 2013-2014) moved to or bought property in Ocean Village, while owner-occupiers' ages were distributed from the beginning of the redevelopment in Ocean Village in 1987 to when I completed gathering my data (2017). Based on this, the population of Ocean Village is quite mixed in terms of moving into or connecting with the place as one of the tenure groups.
Participants with different tenure backgrounds explained their motives for no longer taking part in offline life in Ocean Village, as well as the difficulties in creating a connection in Ocean Village with regard to the changing population and the variety of individuals renting in Ocean Village. Table 1 is primarily based on my questionnaire, and clearly shows that while tenure groups were moving into or purchasing within Ocean Village, the majority of tenants (86.8%) and a large percent of owner occupiers (59.3%) had only moved into the area post-2013. The same was found to be true for landlords (50.0%). Before 1994, only 4.0% of residents living in Ocean Village were owner-occupiers. However, if we keep in mind the differences between tenure groups instead of their similarities, owner-occupiers generally tend to live in Ocean Village longer than
tenants. The same situation is fact has historically been the case when people moved into or purchased within Ocean Village. This approach shows that there is not only a changing population within Ocean Village, but that residential status affects the changing population as stated in the variation in the phrases offered by tenants and owner-occupiers. While this statistical fact gives us tenure status based variations, we need to determine the reasons for this distribution in more detail.
Table 1 The Time Period for Moving Into/Buying within Ocean Village for Different Tenure Groups
Owner-Occupier Tenant Landlord Total
Before 1994 7.7 % (7) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 4.0% (7)
1995-2005 15.4% (14) 1.3% (1) 37.5% (3) 10.3% (18)
2006-2012 17.6% (16) 11.8% (9) 12.5% (1) 14.9% (26)
Since 2013 59.3% (54) 86.8% (66) 50.0% (4) 70.9% (124)
Total 100.0% (91) 100.0% (76) 100.0% (8) 100.0% (175)
Source: Quantitative Survey, Valid: 98.9% (175), Missing:1.1% (2).
Findings from the qualitative records provide greater insight into the changing population in Ocean Village. According to William, a professional who is an owner-occupier in Ocean Village and moved to Ocean Village after 2013,
"They (tenure groups) might have some similar characteristics, but they have different aims and goals as well. For example, landlords would just be interested in the area to make more profit and rent their apartments. On the other hand, occupiers are still concerned with noise, for example. But this is still different to tenants, because they are probably only going to be staying here for a year, or maybe a few years, and will not care about the construction of a hotel ending in a one or a few years because they want to live in a very nice neighbourhood now. So, that is why I see different objectives in terms of these groups."
Similarly, Jacob, as an owner-occupier who is a professional worker and nearly 70 years old, said:
"There are lots of tenants moving in and out. Therefore, I do not know what percentage of tenants there are. But it's quite high... forty or fifty per cent living in .... (an apartment building in Ocean Village) are tenants. So,
33
people are living here six months and then move out and someone else comes in. We do not have a fixed community ofpeople."
Jacob and William, who come from different age groups and backgrounds in terms of career and nationality, highlighted the main variations between tenure groups, especially between homeowners and tenants in terms of their lengths of stay. From another tenure group, Molly, a professional worker who is a tenant, said that: "It is not my business, but it personally affects my security. Some use those buildings for a...I do not know what they say...mmm... Airbnb, something like that. It is just rented to tourists for one or two weeks. I get too much noise beside my flat."
Whilst the population changes extremely quickly in Ocean Village, the internet (Airbnb: daily or short-term rental system) has increased this 'turnover'. Within the same context, Jackson, a semi-retired male second homeowner who had rented his flat for 10 years and for a couple of years had begun to use his home as a second home, outlined the social relationships in Ocean Village as being "very poor". He said: "It is a transitory community. There are a lot of people moving in and moving out all the time. A lot of apartments are empty because they are sort of holiday homes, part-time homes. A very high percentage is like that. They are second homes. Somebody uses it occasionally; a family might use it occasionally."
While Jackson criticised the changing population in Ocean Village in terms of its detrimental effect on making connections between individuals and building a community in Ocean Village, he contributes to this state of affairs, initially as a landlord, then as second homeowner. The last example regarding the "transit community" or "second homes" in Ocean Village, it is appropriate to note here the opinions of another second homeowner, Sara:
"I think that was... about March/April 2015. When they first started. It was brand new. I think that was what it was...And I bought it then, but I
have not actually moved there. I am living in...... (outside of Southampton).
In addition, I bought it as a buy to let and then decided I liked it so much I kept it as a place to go a couple of times a month, two or three times in a month. To just enjoy...Not for holidays. It is just a second home."
These two second homeowners' opinions are contrary to the findings of previous housing studies in terms of the mobility of the householders. Whereas the present literature typically holds that if you are a homeowner, your mobility will be automatically reduced (Mallet 2004), in Ocean Village, second homeowners can simply access their property or, looking at the alternatives, can rent it out or keep it for short stays (e.g., weekend, holiday in summer) throughout the year.
34
6.2. Length of Stay and Internet/Social Media
According to existing empirical studies, there are variations between long and short-term residents concerning creation and maintenance of place. As an example, there is a distinction between tourists and local people in terms meaning of place: This meaning develops or changes over time for local people (Urry 1995; Massey 2005). Whereas globalization influences local people, residents in small neighbourhoods are more concerned with nostalgia and familiarity (Savage 2005 and 2008). These examples within the literature highlight the fact that long-term habitation influences the formation of connections between the members of a neighbourhood. Similarly, in Ocean Village, owner occupiers and tenants were least proud of the amount of communication because of the comparatively high numbers of tenants and landlords who did not live in the same area, like themselves because there is a changing and dynamic population in Ocean Village. Whereas Ocean Village's tenure groups are aware of this issue, they did not highlight it as being one of the reasons behind their selection of Ocean Village. In other words, as distinct to Savage's studies, the dynamic population did not influence the participants' choices, despite the fact they were aware of this dynamism, in terms of place making.
Therefore, one should note here that length of stay has to be re-examined with respect to the impact of the increasing popularity of the internet and, especially, social media. If residents, as owner-occupiers and tenants, wish to contact and communicate with people, they use online social media groups as a way to increase their offline connections (Wellman 2001; Crow 2002). There are different Facebook social media groups that are only for Ocean Village residents and homeowners. These have been created by these people for different purposes (e.g., security, socialising, activities). The subsequent example, Max noted as a tenant:
"I have a couple of ideas. One of them is my neighbours; they do not live in the flat for most of the year, I think. They might own a boat or something, but I don't know. But they aren't staying there for most of the year, and I do not see them very often. And certainly, even if they are in there, the only time I see them is when I pass them in the corridor. No real interaction, not a quick hello. But the good thing is the Facebook group which is basically like a platform for people to communicate. There is quite a lot of engagement on there I think."
While all different residential groups considered themselves to be different to each other, there was a substantial degree of transition in the Ocean Village neighbourhood. There has been a large number of individuals returning to and departing from this area as tenants at the same time. These individuals may only stay in Ocean Village for a number of days, a number of weeks, or six months
35
or more. This situation affects the daily relationships in Ocean Village. In this instance, however, it is necessary to note that the renters are at a stage of their lives during which they are particularly geographically mobile, for instance moving to a new place having finished their university studies or to begin new careers. Owner-occupiers stay longer in Ocean Village (see table 1), corroborating those studies (DiPasquale-Glaeser 1999; Saunders 1990) that claim that homeownership limits the geographical mobility of homeowners.
Additionally, having a second home affects the amount of communication and place making activities with respect to different tenure groups (Hall-Muller 2004). Thanks to their residential standing, the various existing residents have difficulty making their place with their effectively non-existent neighbours. However, as distinct to the above studies, second homeowners in Ocean Village usually lived close to Southampton, and used Ocean Village for leisure activities and job meetings, allowing them to attach to local life and people. Even so, it should be noted that I was unable to recruit any international second homeowners in Ocean Village. However, the existing participants, particularly owner occupiers pointed out that there are neighbours who take care of these international second homeowners' accommodation, and who have access to their flat keys in case of emergency (e.g., fire, water problems). Thanks to the engaging location of Ocean Village, the population changes quickly and these issues have an effect on everyone's ability to form connections with other people, regardless of their tenure status.
Lastly, the length of time they needed to live there did not result in any significant barriers to them, particularly in terms of creation of place through online social media groups. In contrast to previous studies that, in the main, concentrated on older established communities' length of stay, this issue did not appear to matter in Ocean Village. However, the short length of stay is still a significant factor in the lack of connection between those living in Ocean Village.
Social media offers considerable flexibility to its users in terms of contacting other people in their neighbourhood. The convenience of online or offlin life is another excuse to participate in. One of the recently arrived skilled owner-occupiers, Oliver, who avoided taking part in offline activities, stated:
"I think living on your own could be difficult in any place. It may be strange, but as I told you before, I do not want to socialise. But I still feel there are people in there, even though I do not talk with them. I feel like I am not alone. If I walk around the Marina, I will find someone walking a dog. If I want to say 'Hi, how are you', I can."
This highlights the context in offline life as having an effect on people's participation. Moreover, online social media groups allow people to access
36
additional people at any time. As Elliot, a professional who is an owner-occupier in Ocean Village, stated:
"I think when you use social media properly, it is brilliant. People can interact both through social media and through the localfacilities in Ocean Village. Obviously, we cannot deny its role. It plays a role not only for Ocean Village, but around the world...Keeps people in touch and interactive, I cannot say it is negative. If you are travelling or away from Ocean Village, you can easily communicate with people who are there."
Depending on the individual's aim, social media, especially Facebook groups, for Ocean Village are a significant factor in rethinking the importance of length of stay within the contemporary world. As place and belonging change through time (Urry 1995; Massey 2005), the function of spending time in a particular place itself changes through time and is clearly affected by technological changes.
7. Conclusions
While second homeowners do not constitute a large tenure group in the housing market, it is getting growing steadily each in a year in the UK. This group of people are underemphasised by their official data (ONS 2015) and scholars (Saunders 1990; Mallet 2004). However, second homeowners are not completely separate from other groups. In other words, they are interacting, influenced by and have an influence on other tenure groups.
The findings conjointly indicate the recognition and impact of online social media groups and accessibility because of location. The prevailing discussion concerning the importance of length of stay (Elias-Scotson 1994; Savage et al. 2005) is in need of revision, because of my study, which shows that with online platforms being simply accessible, the role of length of stay has been effectively negated in terms of physical accessibility. Despite length of stay, looking at personal interest, through the medium of the internet and social media, individuals will act and build up their connection with place, and thus with others who are connected to the same place as homeowners or renters.
Online and offline life have a certain relevance to one another. In other words, they contribute to the creation and maintenance of place for both newcomers and existing long term residents. Additionally, each offline life and particularly online social media groups are accessible and convenient, if one has internet access and sufficient interest.
Lastly, this paper clearly shows that there is an interactive connection between second homeowners and other tenure groups (owner-occupiers, tenants and landlords). It is not possible to think of second homeowners as being completely separate from these other residential groups. The length of stay or
37
tenure status clearly do not explain this situation completely. After the acceptance of the connection between different tenure groups, in contrast from existing studies in housing studies, it is necessary to consider the importance of location and internet as additional factors. Within this atmosphere, as some of the interview participants noted, Airbnb users emerged as another short-term stayer. For this reason, it would be useful to examine the same research question in terms of Airbnb stayers.
Acknowledgements
I produced this paper from my PhD thesis, which I completed in November 2019 in Sociology Department at the University of Southampton. I would first like to thank the Republic of Turkey Ministry of National Education for providing me with the studentship to do this research in the UK. I would like to thank my supervisors, Dr. Silke Roth and Dr. Lambros Fatsis for their vital support during my study.
38
Impacts of Second Homeownership for Mixed Neighbourhoods
Abstract
The impact of residential status, becoming a landlord, owner-occupier or tenant, is mostly discussed in the literature in terms of their relationships with each other and the organisation of their daily life in terms of its similarities and differences. However, there has been little research to analyse the above aspects in terms of the role of short-term stayers as second homeowners. How does the relationship to the second homeowners vary with resident status? This project sheds new light on the neglected issue of short-term rentals in the creation of place and belonging in a specific area, as related to residential status. In addition, while tenure status become less visible, when comparing this research with the existing work in the literature, location, personal interests, preferences, age and generational differences influence the different tenure groups' preferences. This paper considers Ocean Village in Southampton as a case study. This redevelopment waterfront area comprises businesses, residential and leisure facilities at the same time and it has been ongoing since the 1980s. This research is based on both quantitative and qualitative data. The findings illustrate that short-term stayers have a significant impact on the creation of different tenure groups' place and belonging.
Key words: Home, Location, Waterfront, Second Homeownership, Ocean Village
Kari^ik Mahalleler I^in ikinci Ev Sahiplerinin Etkileri
Oz
Mevcut literaturde ev sahibi olup evinde ya^ayan, evini kiraya veren ve kiracilarin birbirleriyle olan ili§kileri ve bu gruplarin benzerlik ve farkliliklari afisindan gunluk ya^amlarmm organizasyonu geni§ bir §ekilde tarti^ilmaktadir. Ancak, ayni bolgede ikinci ev sahibi olarak kisa sure kalan ki^ilerin oynadigi rol afisindan yukaridaki hususlari analiz etmek ifin fok az ara^tirma yapilmi^tir. Ikinci ev sahipleri ile olu^turulan ili§kiler diger konut sahibi ve kiracilar acisindan nasildir? Bu proje, konut sahipligi statusunden hareketle, kisa sureligine bir yerde ya^ama uzerinden mekan ve aidiyet olu^turma surecine i§ik tutuyor. Buna ek olarak, bir yerde ya^ama suresi daha az onemli hale geliyor. Ayrica bu ara^tirmayi literaturdeki mevcut Qali^malarla kar§ila§tirinca, yer, konum ki^isel ilgi alanlari, tercihler, ya§ ve nesil farkliliklari yukarida bahsettigimiz farkli gruplarin tercihlerini etkilemektedir. Bu projede, Southampton'daki Ocean Village bolgesini orneklem seferek ara^tirma sorusu cevaplanmi^tir. Geli^mekte olan ve 1980'lerden beri bir donu^um halinde olan bu bolgede ofis, konut ve eglence tesisleri bir arada mevcuttur. Bu ara^tirma, nitel ve nicel verilere dayanmaktadir. Bulgular, kisa sureligine bu bolgede konaklayanlarin diger gruplarla geli^tirdikleri ili§kilerin sadece ev sahibi olup olmama ve ayni bolgede ayni oranda zaman harcayip harcamama uzerinden degil onlarin ilgileri ve kullandiklari yeni ileti^im araflari (internet, sosyal medya) da etkili olmu^tur.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Ev, Konum, Sahil, Ikinci Ev, Ocean Village
39
Bibliography
Bryman, Alan (2006) "Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done?" Qualitative Research, 6:97-113.
Coppock, J. Terry (ed.) (1977a). Second Homes, Curse or Blessing? Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Coppock, J. Terry (1977b). Second homes in perspective, in: J T Coppock (ed.), Second Homes, Curse or Blessing? Oxford: Pergamon Press. 1-15.
Coppock, J. Terry (1977c). Social implications of second homes in mid- and north Wales, in J Terry Coppock (ed.), Second Homes, Curse or Blessing? Oxford: Pergamon Press. 147-153.
Creswell, John W. and Clark, Vicki L. Plano (2007). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Crow, Graham (2002). Social Solidarities: Theories, Identities and Social Change. London: Open University Press.
DiPasquale, Denise and Glaeser, Edward (1999). "Incentives and Social Capital: Are Homeowners Better Citizens". Journal of Urban Economics, 45 (2): 354384.
Department for Communities and Local Government: Tenure trends and cross 40 tenure analysis: Table FT1101 (S101): Trends in Tenure, 2016. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/tenure-trends-and-cross-tenure-analysis [Accessed 29.01.2020].
Elias, Norbert and Scotson, John L. (1994). The Established and the Outsiders. London: Sega.
Ellingsen, Winfried (2017). "Rural Second Homes: A Narrative of DeCentralisation". Sociologia Ruralis, 57 (2): 229-245.
Gallant, Nick (2014). "The Social Value of Second Homes in Rural Communities". Housing, Theory and Society, 31 (2): 174-191.
Hall, C Michael and Müller, Dieter K. (eds.). (2004). Tourism, Mobility and Second Homes. Between Elite Landscapes and Common Ground. Clevedon: Channel View Publications.
Kerins, Dan (2014). "21 long forgotten nights clubs in Southampton". Daily Echo Southern. https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/11028794.21-long-forgotten-nights-clubs-in-southampton/ [Accessed 29.01.2020]
Mallett, Shelley (2004). "Understanding home: A critical review of the
literature". The Sociological Review, 52 (1): 62-89.
Massey, Doreen (2005). For Space. London: Sage.
Norris, Michelle and Winston, Nessa (2010). "Second-Home Owners: Escaping, Investing or Retiring?" Tourism Geographies, 12 (4): 546-567.
Paris, Chris (2007). Second Homes in Northern Ireland: Growth, Impact and Policy Implications. Belfast: Northern Ireland Housing Executive.
Paris, Chris (2009). "Re-positioning Second Homes within Housing Studies: Household Investment, Gentrification, Multiple Residence, Mobility and Hyper-consumption". Housing, Theory and Society, 26 (4): 292-310.
Ronald, Richard (2008). The ideology of home ownership: Homeowner societies and the role of housing. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Shucksmith, Mark (1981). No Homes for Locals? Farnborough: Gower Press.
Shucksmith, Mark (1990). Housebuilding in Britain's Countryside. London: Routledge.
Shucksmith, Mark (1991). "Still no homes for locals? Affordable housing and planning controls in rural areas", in Champion, Tony and Watkins, Charles (eds) People in the Countryside: Studies of Social Change in Rural Britain. London: Paul Chapman. 53-66. 41
Saunders, Peter (1990). A Nation of Home Owners. London: Unwin Hyman.
Saunders, Peter (2016). Restoring a Nation of Home Owners. London: Civitas.
Savage, Mike; Bagnal Gaynor and Longhurst, Brian (2005). Globalization and Belonging. London: Sage.
Savage, Mike (2008). "Histories, Belongings, Communities". International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11 (2): 151-162.
Savage, Mike (2010). Identities and Social Change in Britain since 1940. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Urry, John (1995). Consuming Places. London: Routledge.
Wellman, Barry (2001). "Physical Place and Cyber-Place: Changing portals and the rise of networked individualism". International Journal for Urban and Regional Research, 25 (2): 227-252.
Watt, Paul (2009). "Living in an Oasis: Middle-Class Disaffiliation and Selective Belonging in an English Suburb". Environment and Planning, 41: 28742892.
