You speak as if the one and only important metric of a place is how many street murals and tattoo parlors there are. And that coolness of a place should be eno

You speak as if the one and only important metric of a place is how many street murals and tattoo parlors there are. And that coolness of a place should be enough justification to prevent anyone else from enjoying its benefits. Loss of coolness == bad, huh? What about gentrification as a force for reducing crime, raising property values in a place (yes, actual uncouth $ value for people who invested, even unwittingly, and now receive value beyond just being able to get a good burrito), and housing people who previously were searching and couldn't afford to live elsewhere? Just because gentrification comes with some corporate associations doesn't mean it isn't supporting and benefiting millions of actual people. People who, yes, probably aren't fluent in a 2nd language, can't make a good empanada themselves, and are more boring than the people they replace. But who bring stability, more prosperity and resources, and safety margin of not falling back into urban decay? Who are you to say that their use of a community is less worthy than the former occupants? Who gets to decide? Who gets to decide, day to day, and house by house, when someone living there dies or moves, who is "worthy" to move in to replace them? Or are you also suggesting that no one ever be allowed to move in there unless they pass some sort of coolness test? And, by the way, do you mourn the one-before occupants who were displaced by the current creatives / "desireables" so concerned with gentrification now?