Yes, the Chicago museums are better than the Chicago architecture, because the museums in Chicago are world class. And they are not public museums, like the ones in Washington DC. In Chicago, between the Museum of Science and Industry, the Planetarium, and Natural History Museum, you could spend two weeks just going to museums, and that doesn't even count the countless small, ethnic and cultural museums around the city.
While Chicago buildings are said to have originality, the buildings are very similar to those in many other cities across the nation. However, the Chicago museums are many and expansive, each museum hosts countless relevant and fascinating artifacts and pieces. The Art Institute of Chicago, for example, is home to more than 300,000 pieces, including fragments of local Frank Lloyd Wright buildings. The museums often contain historically, economically, or ecologically important pieces, such as the Chicago History Museum's chunk of the original Fort Dearborn, or the Peggy Notebaert Nature Museum's 2,700 square feet of butterfly gardens.
I think that Chicago has some of the most beautiful architecture and that it does not compare to most other Cities in the US. I feel that Chicago is very unique and really stands out. I think that you can have nice museum's anywhere and that although they are really nice, they can't compare to the amazing architecture.
No, Chicago museums and Chicago architecture are unrelated therefore it is difficult to quantify whether or not one is better over one another. The addition of George Lucas Museum will, however, attract more tourists to the locations, as many people are fans of George Lucas' work such as the Star Wars franchise. Chicago architecture will be seen as a result of the increased tourist which will likely aid in their experience.