[Apocryphon]

The point is that those cafes are a symbol of gentrification, as they were created and decorated by wealthy people alien to that neighborhood. Certainly a lot of well-to-do establishments are not exactly friendly environments to those who fall out of their target demographics, even if the people might be local residents. You fixate upon race when the disparity in wealth is just as important in this line of critique.

[carefulobserver]

I understand the point, and I'm suggesting that the author's uncritical acceptance of all the assumptions in the quote makes it difficult for me to take the author as a credible objective observer. For example, is there any actual analysis done to support the idea that these cafes are not owned by locals? In the earlier part of the piece, she mentions that even "local" folks converged on the same aesthetic. Is it a good notion that a neighborhood be "for people of color?" Why are racially segregated neighborhoods good, again?

[Apocryphon]

That paragraph is preceded by two other paragraphs of the author largely quoting and paraphrasing a particular academic. The author has chosen to accept that academic's thesis in order to buttress the overall argument advanced by the essay. Why is it necessary for the author to refute or dispute the academic? Especially compared to any other expert, narrative, or paragraph cited by the essay as evidence for its position? Your obsession with this paragraph, again, is bewildering. This is not an article about hipster cafes in South Africa, that is simply an example that was advanced. If you have an issue with it, do your own research and debunk it yourself. Read the source material and find real holes in it, not just comment thread theorizing. Find yourself actual counter-narratives and analysis that proves such. To do otherwise seems like unnecessary quibbling.