Gentrification or ‘Multiplication of the Suburbs’? Residential Development in New Zealand's Coastal Countryside
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it