I appreciate the Michelin Green Guides because they have more information about the sites and less about hotels and dining. Usually I book my hotel before arriving at a location, so I don't need that info in my guidebook. They also excel in having accurate maps of walking and driving tours of specific areas which are very useful when visiting those areas.
Specifically in the Chicago guide I used the Loop, Lincoln Park, Near South Side, Hyde Park Kenwood, and Oak Park/River Forest maps to help me navigate neighborhoods when I was exploring the architectural treasures of Chicagoland, Unlike other guides I looked at, they pointed out and mapped specific Frank Lloyd Wright, Adler & Sullivan, William Drummond, etc. structures and suggested the unique attributes of each.
Similarly the maps and discussions of the Art Institute Collections were useful in helping me not be overwhelmed by the sheer volume of artifacts to see.
Less useful aspects of Michelin guides and the Chicago guide in particular are their orientation to using private automobiles, rather than public transportation in urban areas. For example the information about major sites included driving directions and parking hints, but did not include the most convenient transit options whether Metra, CTA Trains, and particularly Chicago's extensive bus system. It's a pity because in my week in Chicago I discovered buses can get you very close to almost every attraction at a fraction of the cost of parking.
Although its neighborhood maps are excellent, the Chicago guide's overall maps are less helpful than, for instance DK Eyewitness Travel's detailed overall maps with a street index. With Michelin, you need to look at the overall maps in the front and back inside covers and identify the "Principal Sight" of the area you need and then look in that section for the detailed map.
However after examining a bunch of Chicago Guides, Michelin was my choice to buy and use because it just had more information and detail.