8

open

hou

se in

tern

atio

nal V

ol 3

4,

No.

3,

Sept

embe

r 20

09

U

rban

Sec

ond

Hom

es:

Tem

pora

l-D

wel

ling

in L

ondo

n

IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN

Globalization has profoundly altered contemporarycities - transforming their structure, appearance,and heralding stronger links between them, as wellas between their housing and property markets(Sassen 1991). Adjoined by a greater degree ofmobility, these shifts have enabled a growing worldelite who practice new forms of touring, moving,and living across places (Hall and Müller 2004).This paper will argue that these shifts have alsoinfluenced second home ownership and the prac-tice of multiple dwelling. In its emerging form, thephenomenon has acquired a transnational nature(Paris 2006), and in contrast to the predominantlyrural nature of the trend in the past, this paper willdemonstrate that temporal-occupancy can current-ly be traced to the heart of cities. Urban secondhomes, as they are titled here, will be defined as achallenge to the conventional notion of home(McIntyre et al. 2006) and shown to render suchterms as migration and tourism limited in account-ing for cross-city dwelling. It will be shown that thedifficulty extends to setting policies in response tothese trends, as they call for the revision of the roleand use of housing in the global city.

This paper will propose to view urban secondhomes independently and separately from recre-ational homes in order for their particular implica-tions to be understood in the context of globalurban restructuring. To this end, temporary dwellingin London will be explored to define the phenome-non, highlight its theoretical implications and dis-cuss the challenges it poses to the sustainability ofcities as they become sites for global and transna-tional dwelling patterns.

SSEECCOONNDD HHOOMMEESS:: AANN EEVVOOLLUUTTIIOONN OOFFAA TTRREENNDD

Second homes as a form of recreation have a longhistorical ancestry rooted in ancient Egypt and evi-dent in classical Rome, where multiple homes or vil-las served their owners at different times of the year(Coppock 1977). More recently, they have been arather strong tradition in Scandinavia and NorthAmerica, and also across Europe (Gallent et al.2005). Second homes were seen as an acceptablepart of a "rural scene" and generally seen as relat-ed to the extensive development of outdoor recre-ation, have been documented since the 1930s

Karen Lee Bar-SinaiAAbss t rac t

Despite the extensive attention given to second and recreation homes in rural areas, their urban appearance hashad only limited examination. This paper focuses on the trend as it is manifested in London and suggests urban sec-ond homes are an emerging phenomenon in contemporary cities. Drawing links between recreation homes and otheraspects of mobility and dwelling in the global metropolis, the phenomenon is situated beyond local housing marketsand placed in the context of globalization and urban restructuring. The part-time dwelling patterns it introduces areshown to challenge attempts to define and evaluate its spread. Additionally, the cross-spatial nature of urban secondhomes turns their owners into temporal occupants of several built environments simultaneously. They are thus definedboth as a product and an emerging force in global cities, and as such beg unique attention. The phenomenon callsfor the development of effective monitoring and tracking systems for addressing its development in cities. Lessons fromthe rural experience are used to propose policy approaches and the challenges posed by property market environ-ment are emphasized. It is concluded that the transnational nature of urban second homes, and the inter-city con-nections they form and represent, call for cooperation between cities in addressing them. This may allow the creationof a global data-base and policy-bank as part of the challenge to maintain sustainable cities in the face of disap-pearing national borders.

Keywordss : Second Homes, Recreation Homes, Multiple Dwellings, Cities, London.

URBAN SSECOND HHOMES: TTemporal-DDwelling iinLondon

9

open

hou

se in

tern

atio

nal V

ol 3

4,

No.

3,

Sept

embe

r 20

09

U

rban

Sec

ond

Hom

es:

Tem

pora

l-D

wel

ling

in L

ondo

nKar

en L

ee B

ar-S

inai

(Coppock1977). In the UK, the ownership of sec-ond homes, usually in the form of a summer-cot-tage, has been a common trend for severaldecades, and is especially evident in such coastalor bucolic areas as Cornwall, Norfolk and Devon.

Is something new happening with secondhomes in the UK nowadays? It seems so. TheCommission for Rural Communities report(2006:12) indicates that a significant amount ofsecond homes possessed in the UK today are locat-ed within cities. In order to evaluate their extent andspread in London, the most recent 2001 censusincluding resident-based statistics has been scruti-nized. Selected results presented in the table below(table 1) show a relatively high degree (10-16%) ofsecond home ownership in some of London's afflu-ent neighborhoods in contrast to their low relativevolume in London overall (0.5%). In addition, theabove mentioned report adds a more recent esti-mation (dating 2006) referring to the City- London'sfinancial core, and indicating the existence of a sig-nificant level (27%) of urban second homes withinit.

In spite of the high volumes of urban secondhomes in some of London's neighborhoods, theyhave scarcely been referred to previously. Theirinsignificant indication in the City of LondonInformation Report (Rees 1995), based on the pre-vious 1991 Census, exemplifies how easily theymay be overlooked. Categorized as visitors, secondhome owners were counted in the report under thesame category of those residing in temporaryaccommodation, despite the acknowledgment that

the latter includes those "who have more than onehome and consider their main residence to be else-where" (Rees 1995:5). The phenomenon is thus notonly ill-categorized but also under-evaluated byofficials, perhaps due to the lack of awareness ofthe extent and potential impact that urban secondhomes may have on the urban environment.Although the recent 2001 census reflects aprogress in recognizing second homes, an actualprofessional discussion around the issue has yet tobe developed in the London context.

The growing market demand for temporaryuse ownership is reflected in another trend, whichmay be seen as an exemplifier of the former. Ratherthan manifesting in the regular housing market,this parallel trend takes form in the local hotelindustry. Advertisements appearing around Londonnowadays call investors to "make money while oth-ers sleep"1 through the purchase of a hotel room.According to the marketing scheme, owners areallowed to stay in their 'room' for up to 52 nightsannually free of charge, and receive a percentageof the room rent income during the remaining partof the year. Though positioned on the borderbetween holiday accommodation and secondhomes, the flexible temporal occupancy enabled bythis form of property ownership, allows the ownersto practice a similar form of partial dwelling in thecity, according to their choice of times during theyear, and free from the costs and burden of main-taining the property in between their visits. Coupledand viewed together, the two trends indicate thattemporary-dwelling in London is increasing and

Table 1. Second homes in selected London neighborhoods (produced by author)

1 Add published by "Guestinvest". Content can be also found in the company's official web site www.guestinvest.com

1 0

Kar

en L

ee B

ar-S

inai

open

hou

se in

tern

atio

nal V

ol 3

4,

No.

3,

Sept

embe

r 20

09

U

rban

Sec

ond

Hom

es:

Tem

pora

l-D

wel

ling

in L

ondo

n

spreading in various forms, and therefore demand-ing particular attention.

GGLLOOBBAALL CCIITTYY,, WWOORRLLDD DDWWEELLLL IINNGG

The growing concentration of urban second homesin London is linked to the major transition the cityhas been undergoing in the past few decades.Sassen (1991) describes how the emerging eco-nomic centers in the 1980 heralded the rise of theinternational property market in global cities. Localproperty markets quickly responded to the growingand new form of centrality the city undertook, anda rapid rise in property prices followed. Recognizingthat this has not meant an even effect throughoutthe city- rather a specific product of demand forspace in wealthy and central districts and neighbor-hoods (Sassen 1991:191-2), helps shed light onthe above findings.

The choice of a second home in highlysought-after neighborhoods is in line with Sassen's(1991) analysis. Although the UK census does notindicate the nationality of the second home owners,given the costs of maintaining an expensive and yetmostly vacant second property in such areas inLondon, it is most likely that the majority of the own-ers are non-local residents. As from the outset sec-ond homes have been largely associated with high-society (Coppock 1977), there is a basis to assumethat current urban second home owners are alsomembers of an affluent world elite as well. The highvolume (27%) of urban second homes in London'sfinancial heart - The City- where housing is limitedand considerably expensive further strengthens theassumptions regarding the financial ability of theirowners. Moreover, it highlights the importance offinancial centrality as a location-selection criterion,and indicates that urban second homes are notnecessarily purchased for recreational purposes.Concentrations in other luxurious London locations(i.e. Marylebone, Knightsbridge, Hyde Park) sug-gest that cultural forms of centrality are importantfactors as well. Overall, the presented volumes sig-nal that the phenomenon of second home owner-ship has diversified to include cities, and that thecriteria behind the location choice altered itselfaccordingly- as formerly sought after rural qualitiesare replaced with various forms of urban centrality.

The emerging urban form of second homescalls for a revised framework for understanding andapproaching them in contemporary cities. Thoughthe growing urban and transnational nature of the

phenomenon has been noted (Paris 2006), and thesecond home debate has been updated in light ofthe trends in mobility and migration (Hall Müller2004; McIntyre et al. 2006), the phenomenon isstill mainly linked to tourism and rural studies.Limited attention has been given to the implicationsof the diversifying geographical locations of secondhomes, as well as to the shape and influence theyhave in global cities.

Second home dwelling in global city centersalters existing urban environments in various forms.The popular urban second home neighborhoodsshift from local focal points to become attractiveglobal spots. Their appearance changes accord-ingly, and as Sassen describes (1991) the existingsupply of services quickly adapts to offer globalclass goods as well. Former locals may then findtheir surroundings are beyond their means and thatthey are forced to relocate. Gradually, super rich,partly-occupied islands may form in the city. In con-junction with the segregation tendencies noted incontemporary cities (Soja 2000), urban secondhomes may further accentuate social and spatialpolarization trends which characterize cities as theyare globalized. Urban second homes may there-fore represent both a product of globalization anda shaping force in the urban surrounding, alteringboth the spatial and the social dimensions of cities.

The entrance of global second home buyersinto cities both echoes and draws parallels withrecent trends in world-wide gentrification. As Lees(2003) has identified, a process of "super-gentrifi-cation" is occurring in Brooklyn Heights, New YorkCity, characterized by a scope and effect beyondthe familiar. Led by a new form of elite- richer, moremobile, and globally connected (Lees 2003), it sug-gests that there are not only new agents leadinggentrification today, but also a more extreme formand consequences to the process. As secondhomes infiltrate local urban surroundings they actas a similarly strong external force with social andspatial ripple effects. Although the extreme out-come may seem similar, the part-time presence ofurban second home owners, and namely their peri-ods of absence, challenges the city's vitality further.Additionally, the fact they may be replacing formergentrifiers situates them in a great distance from theoriginal notion of gentrification as it was identifiedin the late 60s. This underscores the need for arevised theoretical terrain for understanding hous-ing markets and dwelling patterns in contemporarycities.

1 1

open

hou

se in

tern

atio

nal V

ol 3

4,

No.

3,

Sept

embe

r 20

09

U

rban

Sec

ond

Hom

es:

Tem

pora

l-D

wel

ling

in L

ondo

nKar

en L

ee B

ar-S

inaiCCHHAANNGGIINNGG NNOOTTIIOONNSS:: HHOOMMEE,,

DDWWEELLLL IINNGG,, DDWWEELLLLEERRSS

Part-time dwelling greatly reflects the altered notionof "home" and poses a challenge to that of migra-tion. As Massey and Jess (1995) point out, anincreasing percentage of the population today hasno usual residence, but rather several ones in dif-ferent locations amongst which time is divided. Thisstrengthens the transitional nature of first and sec-ond homes identified by Coppock (1977), alongwith their increasingly transnational nature as iden-tified recently by Paris (2006). Both may suggestthat the notion of the familiar hierarchy of primaryand secondary homes (referring to respectivedegrees of use) is becoming obsolete. In addition,due to the changing nature of work, several dis-parate living patterns may occur even within a sin-gle household, posing an additional challenge tocurrent approaches. Second home owners there-fore testify to the disappearing relevance of a"home" as a representation of a singular "house-hold" and demonstrate the current complexity of thenotion of "dwelling" both as a noun and as a verb.

The dwelling patterns urban second homeowners practice challenge attempts to categorizethem and thereby underscore absent notions withindebates regarding home, mobility and the city. Anattempt to define the phenomenon based on exist-ing terminology may result in describing the ownersas "part time super-gentrifiers" whilst their dwellingpattern may be referred to as "temporal-occupan-cy". However, both references remain vague andreveal the difficulty of capturing seasonality andtemporality dimensions of emerging dwelling pat-terns with existing terminology. Moreover, as urbansecond home owners dwell across cities or variouslocations, they partake in several housing scenes,effectively acting as part-time occupiers in a few dis-parate settings at the same time. Their parallelimpact on several built environments demonstratesthe limits of understanding local housing marketswithin their geographical boundaries. Rather thanviewed independently, housing markets in globalcities must also be seen through the links formedbetween them, and the spatial practices that thesein turn bring about.

The seasonal dimension of second homedwelling situates their occupiers in a gray area in-between tourist and migrant (Williams and Hall2000:19). The lack of suitable terms and defini-tions hinders the ability to understand and respondto the phenomenon in different contexts. This is fur-

ther underscored by the suggested mediating termi-nology referring to quasi-migration (Casado-Diaz1999) which further emphasizes the closeness oftourism and migration, rather than assisting theirdistinction. The dynamic nature of second homesas well as the potentially changing relationshipbetween them and first homes introduces addition-al challenges as they are used differently in time.They may serve as semi-retirement sites on a parttime basis for the initial period, and only laterbecome primary residences (Coppock 1977).There may also occur an entire loss of hierarchyamongst first and second home as implied byMassey and Jess (1995). The primary home mayno longer be the one one spends the most time in,but rather the one closest to the occupiers' heart.Existing terminology is therefore gradually renderedincapable of capturing the various dimensions thattemporal dwelling introduce today.

The challenge in estimating the occupationlevels of second home owners further hinders theability to evaluate the impact they entail on theirphysical and social surroundings. First, with thechanging nature of work and home, it may be dif-ficult even within single household units to distin-guish a first from second home in a householdbased survey such as the national census.Moreover, even when a second home does serve asan alternative dwelling place, there are immensemethodological difficulties in estimating the extentto which it serves as such, or monitoring the growthof the phenomenon (Happle and Hogan 2002).The national-basis of the census adds to the chal-lenge, as it does not allow for the drawing of con-clusions regarding transnational and inter-citydwelling links. The limited data provided here high-lights these difficulties (i.e. the absence of ownersnationalities, as well as degrees of actual occupan-cy) and in lack of effective procedures to track thephenomenon there exists a great challenge indrawing firm conclusions or setting effective poli-cies.

SSEECCOONNDD HHOOMMEESS AANNDD LLOOCCAALL CCOONNTTEEXXTTSS

The urban occurrence of second homes is alsoimportant in terms of their impact on the urban builtenvironment. As this trend has only had limitedexamination in cities, there is insufficient empiricaldata for estimating their effect on their surround-ings. Nevertheless, the vast experience and lessons

1 2

Kar

en L

ee B

ar-S

inai

open

hou

se in

tern

atio

nal V

ol 3

4,

No.

3,

Sept

embe

r 20

09

U

rban

Sec

ond

Hom

es:

Tem

pora

l-D

wel

ling

in L

ondo

n

from UK and European rural areas with high ratesof second homes provide a helpful testing groundfor understanding and addressing second homes incities.

As second home properties are often pur-chased for seasonal or part time occupation, buy-ers tend to spend a limited time in them. Propertiesleft empty for long periods have a twofold environ-mental and social effect on the urban landscape.First, as second-home owners replace the perma-nent local dwellers, the local services, business andcommunity may be adversely affected by adecrease in members and clients. Secondly, as thehousing stock is limited and under high demand,property values may rise beyond the reach of localresidents, who often have lower incomes than thesecond home buyers (Coppock 1977; Gallent etal. 2005). Due to the scarcity of houses and risingproperty values, younger inhabitants are forced outand left with no alternatives but to relocate. In addi-tion, they leave behind them an aging generationand part time residents, sharing empty towns withvulnerable sustainability and limited futureprospects. Although several decades ago a tenden-cy to dramatize the conflicts between second-homeowners and locals has been noted (Coppock1977), and despite the fact that some local sellershave gained considerable profits from selling theirproperties for high values, current literature still sug-gests that the proliferation of second homes in ruralareas poses a threat to the future of rural commu-nities (Gallent et al. 2005).

Though the average local Londoner may notbe able to afford to purchase an apartment in thepopular city's second-home neighborhoods, view-ing this phenomenon in light of the high volume ofinvestors-activity in the London housing market("buy to sell" and "buy to let"), demonstrates itspotential threat. This is especially pertinent as it hasbeen shown that these types of investment activitytend to focus on smaller units, and hence on themore affordable ones. These appear to be in high-est demand with investors (Craine and Mason2006), and first time buyers could be priced out bythis growing market demand. Combined with theincreasing demand for urban second homes thesetwo tendencies are reducing choice and availabili-ty for lower-income owner occupiers. ThoughCraine and Mason (2006) conclude that suchthreats are outweighed by benefits of the market-function, there might come a time in which asidefrom affordable housing schemes, few will be ableto afford to buy a home in London. The growing

demand for second homes in its selected neighbor-hoods may be accentuating this tendency.

Urban second homes should also be seen inlight of wider urban planning and housing strate-gies (Gallent et al. 2005) in urban as well as ruralareas. In the context of London, the urgency tomeet housing needs is frequently-mentioned andhas also been expressed in the vision and objectivespresented as part of the section entitled "Towardsthe Mayor's housing strategy" in the official munici-pal website. Together with current discussionsregarding the further development of the city (suchas around Thames Gateway), these two indicate anintention to meet housing demand through the con-struction of additional units and further spatialexpansion.

Currently, additional urban developmenttakes place around the city whilst urban secondhomes proliferate and form temporal vacancieswithin it. In the "Shrinking Cities" project (Oswalt2005) urban development and growth are criticizedin light of what is described as a vast urban shrink-age due to population drainage. This process isdeemed to result in vacant urban areas hollowingout as the cities surrounding them are furtherexpanded. Seen through this lens, urban secondhomes may be similarly observed to entail even adeeper threat than shrinkage. Disguised by owner-ship, they carry an illusory effect of occupancy, yetactually remain empty for the majority of the time.This stresses the need to recognize the imminentthreat urban second homes may introduce, todevelop methodologies for tracking them and mea-suring their effects, and for finding effective tools tomitigate their presence.

The relatively low share of urban secondhomes in the whole city of London (0.5% accordingto 2001 census), should thus not mislead policymakers. This rate masks the inherent geographicalselectivity of the trend to concentrate in specific lux-urious neighborhoods which provide the lifestyleurban second home dwellers seek. While suchnoteworthy rates as found in Knightsbridge andBelgravia would draw attention if they were to occurin rural areas, they are easily overlooked in theurban environment. Though London as a wholemay be able to absorb this amount of part-timedwellers, its specific neighborhoods may not. In theCity of London, where second-homes account for27% of the total housing stock, a real threat may beposed to local communities and their services. Thelink to other localities in which the part time dwellersreside at other times places different surroundings

1 3

open

hou

se in

tern

atio

nal V

ol 3

4,

No.

3,

Sept

embe

r 20

09

U

rban

Sec

ond

Hom

es:

Tem

pora

l-D

wel

ling

in L

ondo

nKar

en L

ee B

ar-S

inaiunder the same parallel threat. In light of the limi-

tation of urban based statistics to capture complexconditions emerging in global cities, urban secondhomes should be addressed on neighborhood, cityand global scales in order to be dealt with effec-tively.

RREECCOOGGNNIIZZ IINNGG AANNDD AADDDDRREESSSS IINNGGSSEECCOONNDD HHOOMMEESS:: CCUURRRREENNTT AANNDDFFUUTTUURREE PPOOLL IICCYY

The decision to address the issue of second homesthrough policy-making raises ethical as well astechnical difficulties. One argument is that plannershave no right "to contemplate the problems of sec-ond homes" until they solve "those of the firsthomes" (Coppock 1977: 197). Another ethicalquestion is whether planning should deal withoccupancy, as it concerns the owners' will and freechoice. In addition, there exists a general difficultyin restricting a neo-liberal trend in an open proper-ty market such as in London, which greatly dependson the lack of regulations or boundaries.

Nevertheless, the challenge in designingpolicies for steering current urban second homes islinked to the broader motivation to protect localenvironments and ensure their sustainability in faceof global forces. As such, and in light of the widerecognition of the enduring social responsibilityplanners still possess (Gallent and Tewdwr-Jones2007), a policy response to urban second homesas a trend is still highly relevant. As first and secondhomes are inherently interlinked and their degree ofoccupancy may impact the sustainability of entireurban neighborhoods, their spread and conse-quences should be addressed. This is especiallypertinent to London, where supply of housing isdeemed to be falling short of demand, and is cou-pled with a diminishing ability of many to partake inthe housing market. Both tendencies have been fur-ther accentuated by the influx of global capital intothe city and are hence related to urban secondhomes as well. In this context, gaining a first, not tomention a second home in London is becoming adistant dream for many. Therefore, ethical andpractical difficulties in addressing urban secondhomes are not sufficient reasons to disregard thisphenomenon.

Policy may restrict access to second homesdirectly as well as indirectly to create a greater bal-ance in access to dwellings in the city, and betweenLondon's urban competitiveness and its future sus-

tainability. Until recently, second-homes in the UKenjoyed a generous 50% discount in council taxbecause they were only partly occupied during theyear. A revised policy in 2003 allowed councils tocharge second home owners up to 90% of the fullcouncil tax (Commission for Rural CommunitiesReport 2006), with the intention that the additionalincome from the 100,000 UK second homeswould be redirected back by local councils andhelp fund additional social housing. Nevertheless,as this report shows, the revised policy did not pro-vide the desired effect, and rural homes are stillbeyond the reach of the rural population. Thisdemonstrates the limits of council tax as a policytool for controlling the spread of second homes,and perhaps indicates the limitations of a direct taxbased policy in general.

The key to addressing urban second homesis rooted in viewing them in light of the wider hous-ing context, and hence in relation to other housingpolicies (Gallent et al. 2005). For instance, newprojects in popular second home neighborhoodscould aim to include social housing schemes tointroduce greater population balances. Anotherpossible channel lies in encouraging time-shareschemes similar to the "Guest Invest" hotel-roomownership model in light of their larger environ-mental sustainability. In addition, it would be valu-able to develop efficient and reliable methods oftracking and evaluation -both of second homes'spatial spread and of the impact they have on theirimmediate vicinities. This may set a better groundfor policies set to balance their presence and ame-liorate their affects.

The limited theoretical framework for evalu-ating temporal dwelling patterns is another hin-drance to the elaboration of effective policy. Thiscalls for the development of new methodologicaltools for estimation of a dwelling use frequency.Certain proxy indicators may be utilized to this endto allow determining not only whether a tenant is asecond home occupier, but also the degree of hisoccupancy. In essence, a tool that measures theeffective degree of temporal occupancy is required.Such a tool, as has been explored in the case ofJerusalem (Bar-Sinai 2007) allows to measure theprobability of a dwelling being occupied rangingfrom fully occupied to fully vacant. Therefore, itallows classifying the temporary owners by theirdegree of occupancy, setting a new approachtowards the phenomenon and assisting in quantify-ing temporary occupancy.

In light of the global nature of urban second

1 4

Kar

en L

ee B

ar-S

inai

open

hou

se in

tern

atio

nal V

ol 3

4,

No.

3,

Sept

embe

r 20

09

U

rban

Sec

ond

Hom

es:

Tem

pora

l-D

wel

ling

in L

ondo

n

homes, an inter-city study is also highly relevant toperforming a comprehensive and accurate evalua-tion of their spread. Combining these measure-ments may ensure greater sustainability both on alocal and global level. In the former, it may ensurethat London's less affluent population is not gradu-ally being denied of entire neighborhoods in thecity, whilst in the latter, cities may become betterequipped to deal with world tenants and temporarydwelling practices.

CCOONNCCLLUUSSIIOONN

As cities continue to globalise new forms of livingand dwelling are enabled in and between them. Inthe context of this increased mobility, London haswitnessed the growth of urban second home ratesin its prestigious neighborhoods. Whilst this phe-nomenon has been widely explored in the ruralcontexts, its appearance in cities has hitherto notbeen sufficiently examined. This paper has analyzedurban second homes in London to illustrate the waythey are manifested in cities and discuss the impactthey bear on theory and practice.

The example of London demonstrates thatthe phenomenon may carry an evasive nature as itsvolumes may appear insignificant in overall cityreports. Although cities may be deemed capable ofabsorbing a certain degree of vacant homes withinthem, the tendency of urban second homes to con-centrate in selected neighborhoods is where theirthreat lies. As these local settings gain world popu-larity and become terrains for global temporal-dwelling, they may gradually produce isolatedislands and sharpen segregational tendencies ofcontemporary cities.

The rise of second homes in cities signals aseries of profound shifts in global dwelling patterns.They thus highlight that the terms "home" and"migration" fall short in capturing contemporaryconditions. Similarly, the difficulty of tracking andanalyzing the phenomenon is bound by theabsence of methodologies for approaching tempo-rality and seasonality dimensions in dwelling pat-terns. The transnational nature of second homesadds to the challenge and calls for innovative andeffective methods for tracking dwelling across timeand space. A model based on the probability ofoccupation may be the key to readdressing andmeasuring temporal-occupancy.

Additionally, as the case of London demon-strates, cities can no longer be understood inde-

pendently of each other, and should be viewedthrough the networks they form and the new spatialpractices these networks introduce. A global data-base and policy expertise in this area may thus bevery useful in addressing this important phenome-non. It may also shed light on the role the sameagents may carry simultaneously in different urbancontexts and in several housing market scenes, andassist in addressing the challenge as part of thestruggle to maintain sustainable cities in face of dis-appearing world borders.

RREEFFEERREENNCCEESS

2006. Evaluation of the use of reduced council tax dis-count from second homes by rural authorities 2004/05.Commission for Rural Communities, London.

BAR-SINAI, K. L. 2007. Multiple dwellings and the city:Temporal-tenancy and urban second homes in Jerusalem.MSc Dissertation. The London School of Economics andPolitical Science.

CASADO-DIAZ, M. A. 1999. Socio-demographic impactsof residential tourism: a case study of Torrevieja, Spain.International Journal of Tourism Research 1:223-237.

COPPOCK, J. T. 1977. Second homes: Curse or blessing?Pergamon, Oxford.

CRAINE, T. & MASON, A. 2006. Who buys new markethomes in London? London Development Research Ltd. forThe Greater Alone Authority.

GALLENT, N., MACE, A. & TEWDWR-JONES, M. 2005.Second homes: European perspectives and UK policies.Ashgate, Aldershot.

GALLENT, N. & TEWDWR-JONES, M. 2007. Decenthomes for all: Planning’s evolving role in housing provi-sion. Routledge, London.

HALL, C. M. & MÜLLER, D. K. 2004. Tourism, mobility,and second homes: Between elite landscape and commonground. Channel View Publications, Clevedon, UK ;Buffalo.

HAPPLE, S. K. & HOGAN, T. D. 2002. Counting snow-birds: The importance of and problems with estimatingseasonal population. Population Research and PolicyReview 21:227-240.

LEES, L. 2003. Super-gentrification: The case of BrooklynHeights, New York City Urban Studies 40:2487-2509.

MASSEY, D. & JESS, P. (eds.) 1995. A place in the world?

1 5

open

hou

se in

tern

atio

nal V

ol 3

4,

No.

3,

Sept

embe

r 20

09

U

rban

Sec

ond

Hom

es:

Tem

pora

l-D

wel

ling

in L

ondo

nKar

en L

ee B

ar-S

inaiPlaces, cultures and globalization: 4 the shape of the world

Oxford university press, Oxford.

MCINTYRE, N., WILLIAMS, D. & MCHUGH, K. 2006.Multiple dwelling and tourism: Negotiating place, home,and identity. CABI Pub., Wallingford ; Cambridge, Mass.

OSWALT, P. 2005. Shrinking cities. Ostfildern-Ruit : HatjeCantz ; London : Art Books International.

PARIS, C. 2006. Multiple ‘homes’, dwelling & hyper mobil-ity & emergent transnational second home ownership.Housing in an expanding Europe: Theory, Policy,Participation and Implementation. Ljubljana, Slovenia.

REES, P. W. 1995. City of London Census 1999: An analy-sis of data relating to residents based on the Census ofPopulation 1991. City of London, Department of Planning.

SASSEN, S. 1991. The global city: New York, London,Tokyo. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J. ; Oxford.

SOJA, E. W. 2000 Postmetropolis : Critical studies of citiesand regions, Oxford, Malden, MA, Blackwell Publishers.

WILLIAMS, A. M. & HALL, C. M. 2000. Tourism and migra-tion: New relationships between production and consump-tion. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht ; London.

www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/www.guestinvest.comwww.london.gov.uk

Author’s AAddress:Karen Lee Bar-SinaiSAYA Architecture & ConsultancyPOB 7918, Jerusalemkarenlee@sayarch.com