Isn't your "communities cannot be destroyed, just changed" argument just a semantic point?

I'd imagine that few would describe "Redmond Ridge" as a "very woodsy, cowtown". It's fine to say that "woodsy, cowtown" community has just changed, but if you can no longer see that community it's pretty easy to argue it has gone (aka been destroyed).

I strongly agree that change isn't necessarily bad, and I think gentrification often gets a bad rep for what is often a significant improvement. But I don't see how you can argue that communities don't get destroyed by it.