Did we need the lake?

Let's imagine that Lake Michigan didn't exist, but in its place was a wide river (Mississippi width) that followed the exact path of the current Lake Michigan. Let's imagine that Chicago's position in th US was thus similiar to what it is today with the absense of the lake not changing the dynamics of the nation's east-west growth (and a river port available for connection with the Great Lakes and the Erie Canal) as well as east-west rail transportation still finding a Chicago center as being beneficial. WOULD CHICAGO HAVE STILL DEVELOPED INTO THE GLOBAL, MAJOR CITY IT IS TODAY WITHOUT LAKE MICHIGAN IF ITS ECONOMIC ENGINE WAS NOT AFFECTED....OR DID THE GROWTH OF CHICAGO ALSO HEAVILY RELY ON THE AESTHETICS OF LAKE MICHIGAN? Simply put, could the heartland of North America had such a great city as Chicago even with its economic advantages but without the grandeur Lake Michigan provided?>