Chicago's destiny: always US's most centralized around one core metro?

I think one can make a most compelling argument that Chicago is now and always will be America's most centralized around one core metropolitan area. Nothing compares. • Manhattan maintains two hubs, downtown and the newer, but more overpowering uptown. Downtown Brooklyn is under redevelopment, with more on the way and no one can argue with Jersey City's rising skyline. • Despite the tremendous growth of downtown LA, numerous concentrations exist throughout the city and metro area. LA's mountainous core and wide spread will assure this trend, already noteworthy, entensifies • SF may be a world class city, but it competes with Oakland, SJ, Silicon Valley, and other locations that share core status in the Bay Area • DC's height restrictions forces high rise concentration to suburbia, largely VA, but MD as well • Miami shares SF's status as a metro area with numerous centers, intensified by its linear layout • Houston and other s'western cities never relied on one core the way that eastern and midwest cities do. Downtown Houston has redeveloped nicely; retail and life style are still played out better in the Galleria area, with the tallest non-core building in the nation • Places like Detroit and St. Louis have basically lost control of their metro areas to suburbia and those suburbs have some pretty massive cores (like Troy and Clayton) that easily compete with the central cities. • Hilly Pgh and Cincy are attractive cities whose topography discourages access to a strong core. • Atlanta super growth has always been more suburban than city. What we saw in the years after WWII was not the rise of Atlanta, but the rise of Metro Atlanta. • meanwhile a whole slew of smaller cities never had the pull to make their downtowns the only true core. And then there's Chicago: a huge, flat and centralized. The expressway system is designed (for better, or more likely, worse) to bring people in and out of downtown. Any thought of more than one core disapated due to the close proximity of the Loop and Mag Mile; they became one, a stronger one. Flatness and lack of wide rivers offers an unmatched access to the heart of town through rail and road. The Loop and environ's long traditon of high powered business, cultural institutions, night life, residential density have contributed to an area that didn't have to be "sold" the way that other cities have had to market their cores. And frankly, what could possibly compete? Schaumburg, for all its development, is hardly an impressive edge city. Same with O'Hare. Evanston will continue to develop a thrieving residentially tall skyline, but lack of expressway access will not make it a true hub. In the city, I think it is doubtful that a North Side neighborhood (like Uptown) or South Side (like Hyde Park) would emerge as a true center. Perhaps Peotone eventually, based on airport construction, but the jury is out on that one. I think Chicago is unique in the ways I've described. Other thoughts?>