Gentrification or ‘Multiplication of the Suburbs’? Residential Development in New Zealand's Coastal Countryside
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper conceptualizes recent residential development in New Zealand's coastal countryside, which has entailed dramatic escalations in land and housing values. It considers whether this process should be understood as gentrification, as has recently been suggested. The argument against this interpretation is twofold. First, some qualities of coastal development that echo themes in the rural gentrification literature may be better understood as characteristics of a buoyant real estate market. Second, various central elements of rural gentrification are absent. These include restoration and reuse of the built environment, a shift in locational preferences prompting in-migration, and countercultural lifestyle opportunities. The process is also unlikely to cause significant direct displacement, as growth has proceeded in large part through greenfield new-build. An alternative, and long-standing, conceptualization of rural coastal development in New Zealand is as a type of suburbanization. The reproduction of suburban forms and functions is illustrated with reference to a case study from the Northland region. The paper emphasizes that definitions of gentrification need to be tailored so as not to capture any type of real estate-related investment and upgrading.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".