I would be against changing algo in Monero too, even if ASICs were devised, thing is, as the protocol stands ASICs are not impossible, it just won't be as good as Bitcoin's ASICs when you compare them to CPUs and GPUs mining SHA256.
I wouldn't be against ASICs if they were available in a commoditized market, like computers or GPUs are. The problem with ASICs as they are now is that it's a seller's market.
In the market as it is now, only one firm makes and sells ASICs. The same firm, or some subsidiary, also mines. This already smells bad as they compete with the other miners (their potential clients). When that firm produces a new, more powerful model, it doesn't get on the shelves immediately: first, the firm uses it to mine while the ASIC still is way ahead of the other hardware and has a strong competitive advantage. After a while, when the competitive edge is dulled, they'll sell the machine to selected clients (not just anyone), with the understanding that the client will "behave" or be excluded from the next sale.
An alternative PoW could help keep more balance - for example, one block every 4 (or 2, or 10) must use a memory-intensive PoW. This ratio could be dynamic, there are many possible strategies that could be tested. With a memory-heavy PoW, there's a lower bound to the cost of the chip which is the RAM it requires. If the required RAM were in the 4-8 GB per processor ballpark, building ASICs wouldn't be that cheap anymore.
Just need a way so that the more you own, the higher the costs to sustain it. The blockchain equivalent of a tax. Now, since you can create infinite addresses at no cost, creating that tax on the "wealthy" (avoid too much concentration) requires some thought. This would put a limit to concentration within the logic itself. Coins with built in governance can do a bit of this, by allowing the community to vote, but have the same problem that you can't tell if a person has 100000 addresses or wallets or 1. One path towards it is to create functionality that rewards linking wallets of the same entity such that it create inconvenience or less safety of being one entity and using a large number of unconnected addresses. There must be a way to tax more those with large amounts. But, the larger groups would not push this, and this has more chances on a new coin and that can only happen when/if coins highly concentrated have bad results for smaller holders -> these would be the ones adopting such a coin that taxes very high concentration. This would also solve as ASIC owner would be limited - the more they mine the more they are taxed, and thus best interest in owning more by selling ASIC, not mining it themselves at a higher cost.
