Chicago wouldn't be HORRIBLE, but AFAIK the best Summer Olympic venues in the USA would be LA and Atlanta. LA has the transit infrastructure and plenty of huge stadiums already and Atlanta still has the facilities from whenever its Olympics was, which were already some of the cheapest games in recent history. From what I read, Brazil spent tens of billions getting ready and I'm sure everyone in Chicago would have their hand out as well, but having the event someplace with a good airport and lots of roads to move people around solves a lot of Olympics-related problems. I do think some good would come of it. There's a lot of fighting over any lake-front real estate. We just lost the George Lucas museum because some boat owners didn't want to give up a patch of parking lots, so having some kind of genuine mandate for useful and beneficial structures might serve a better long-term purpose.
I also understand that climate change is going to cause real problems for possible hosting locations worldwide over the next hundred years, and I suspect it might be easier to just establish a rotation of permanent locations in for the games. Brazil probably could've done something better with $40 Billion and moving between LA and Tokyo and London might just fix all of that.
100 years? Unfortunately, I doubt there will be Olympics anywhere near that long.
Is anything related to George Lucas useful and beneficial? :lol: