I'm reading through the comments on the manrepeller article, and finding the back and forth arguments interesting. I think I agree with the ones that argue that it's just a pendulum swinging thing.
The way I see it, nothing exists in a vacuum, everyone dresses both to please themselves, to please their sub-culture/core group, and in opposition to something else. The hippies opposed their parent's looks, and wanted to look cool and attractive to each other too, just like everyone else does, unless they are embracing true eccentricity, which is fairly rare.
One thing normcore does, which hipster 'fashion' also does very well, is level the economic playing field. Ironic or accessible? I think it depends on the wearer and the observer.
I like visual biodiversity, so would be sad if all creatives stopped creating imaginative clothes, but since that seems unlikely I'm just kind of watching with interest from the sidelines.
ETA: As someone who was part of a young creative dot com office full of people who would go en-mass after work to the 1$ Pabst happy hour, I have to say, maybe it starts ironically, but it sticks because people can afford it.
