Does Chgo urbanization hurt suburban urbanization?

IMHO, Chicago is a totally positive influence on Chicagoland. Suburbanites benefit and use the city throughly. Chicago is a job generator that keeps many suburbs wealthy. Chicago reverses an old time urban trend and makes property values actually rise when you get closer to it. And a good part of that rise has been the type of high rise developments you see in places like Evanston today. But is there a downside in the relationship? Does Chicago's presence prevent the suburbs from getting th full benfit of the type of urbanization that happens elsewhere (to a degree) more than in Chicago. As in: • LA's concept of many core areas which promotes downtown and the city center, but not at the expense of outlying core areas • Detroit's decline had created a stronger need for important urban functions to spread to suburbia • DC's unique role as nat'l capital and what that did to height restrictions and concentration of office space and high rise residential structures has been taken over by the MD and VA suburbs • the Bay Area's separation of space into a series of strongly identified subregions has allowed for urbanization throughout the region, not only beyond SF, but beyond Oakland and San Jose as well Chicago, in contrast, has been an example of exceedingly strong urban core dominating a region, even in total command of its expressway system (how unusual it is to find a city as big as Chicago where all routes lead through the circle interchange.). Does having the 1000 pound gorilla next door keep suburbia from developing the type of urbanization that many of us would like to see it have?>