The Economist put on its fiscally minded hat today and published a piece defending gentrification. The rather simplistic argument is as follows: the 50-year-old term gentrification has become a dirty word because of its rep for pushing (and pricing) out existing poor and minority residents. But "there is little evidence that gentrification is responsible for displacing the poor or minorities." Beyond that, the gentrifiers do things like pay taxes, and use their clout to push for better schools and other neighborhood niceties.
However annoying they may be, hipsters help the poor. Their vintage shops and craft-beer bars generate jobs and taxes. So if you see a bearded intruder on a fixed-gear bike in your neighbourhood, welcome him. When pigs flyright, residents of East New York? And East Harlem? And the Bronx?
· Bring on the hipsters [Economist via Gothamist]
· Gentrification Watch archive [Curbed]