Chicago as a case study: aren't cities better off without "comparisons"

Are our cities far better off when we drop the comparisons between them and allow each to operate on its own?

I ask this as a Chicagoan because Chicago often becomes the poster child city for making comparisons.

We get a lot of the "smaller version" of New York arguments or the that Chicago and LA are in some absurd battle for some sort of non-existent "second slot" in the US, each city's attributes and negatives contributing to its relative rise or decline.

I myself totally dismiss the concept that Chicago is a "mini-New York" on any level; Chicago's personality is unique and cannot be compared to any city. Likewise, Chicago and LA are great cities, doing far more battle here than they do in "the real world". Both are unique and niether depends on the other to detmine its greatness.

As a Chicagoan and one who has been invovled with so many out-of-town visitors (an well as knowing locals well) get the following impression of my city: the people who live in it love it, the people in the metro region are proud to be part of it (and will identify themselves as "Chicagoans"), out of towners are enchanted by it, and those who haven't been to Chicago look at it as a place they like to go.

Every one of the perceptions I listed above is strenghtened by eliminating comparisons to other cities and seeing Chicago as Chicago.

In that sense, I would be curious to know how people on the board see Chicago as a city when they see it as Chicago.....and avoid comparing to New York, LA, or any other great city. Basically, how does Chicago come out when it stands on its own two feet when the obvious achievements of New York, LA or elsewhere are left out of the conversation???????>