No this is not logical to say. Another coin would take over as a highly transactable commodity, but to say "take over" is incredibly vague. I am suggesting such a low size renders this "commodity" like gold, and this would have an incredible utility in relation to our current financial system. This is the issue I see, people want bitcoin to be both a fundamental basepoint and a highly transactable material. I suspect it cannot be both, should not be both, and won't be both.
Are you sure, that at such a low block size, bitcoin is worthless? I suspect that the only true issues with price is uncertainty. And so once we solve this issue, this will change.
I am absolutely sure that a low block size will be worthless for the reason that the commodity of block space will still not be scarce. On the coinmarketcap site you will see Megacoin, Vertcoin, Quark and many others, all of which are functional clones of Bitcoin. They all offer block space for trustless, peer-to-peer, censorship-free, permissionless, rapid, 24/7 electronic transactions. Why should anyone pay $5 to send a Bitcoin transaction when they can spend 5c of Vertcoin to achieve the same result?
If Bitcoin became permanently block-space limited, then it would be quite simple for Bitpay and Coinbase to offer Litecoin or Megacoin as an alternative to customers who are priced away from Bitcoin.
The Bitcoin-for-buying-a-Ferrari only works in the real-world if Bitcoin can also (theoretically) buy a million coffees at the same time. You like the pyramid analogy, think of a pyramid of transactions by value. The ability to do a series of low-value transactions supports the ability to do higher and higher value transactions.