How about you look at paragraph five of the article:
“The steady financial decline of the nation’s third-largest city prompted us in early August to say Chicago was well on its way to becoming the next Detroit,”
“Well on its way” and “next” are something of a timeline. I’ll leave it to you and to the author of the article which you are defending to figure it out.
“Next,” given the prevalence of Democratic governance in major cities, is a pretty high bar to meet, and if you and the author of the article think that no city is going under in the next 20 years, and Chicago is next, then there doesn’t seem to be much pressing about the situation.
If I understand the relation between the medical industry, Obamacare, and Cleveland correctly, I’d put my money there over Chicago—Chicago also has the additional advantage of having a stranglehold on state finances.
Next? I’d bet against it.
So, you're argument is that you think that author is incorrect that Chicago is "next". That is not a ringing endorsement of their viability and really irrelevant. Being the city to fail after the next city fails doesn't matter a whole lot. Dead is dead