I just stumbled upon this, and will probably not click on the box that sends replies to this thread to me, since I have personal problems that the demands of time (or the lack therof) forbid my continued participation in the conversation. You know how it goes.
In any case, it would not be prudent to build a great structure on a piece of land that could not guarantee a firm foundation, right? Even if the lesser-quality plot of land was more geometrically correct, no?
There are also other, more mundane (maybe) reasons for building a "significant" building on a plot of land somewhat removed from the plot of land it was originally slotted to be built on.
One could say, for example, that the original geometry of the site was found to be a bit "off," and that an 11th-hour adjustment had to be made in order to make the location "spot on," as they say. As Bob Villa used to say on "This Old House," you should "measure twice and cut once."
Let's also take, for example, the Pentagon, which the groundbreaking ceremony for took place on 9/11/46, exactly 60 years to the day of the Twin Towers event, of recent and horrific memory (I was working within a one-mile distance that day, in Manhattan, and slept in the office that night).
I recall reading someplace (perhaps one of you will have better recall) that the Pentagon was supposed to be built in a designated place, but that Franklin D. Roosevelt decided that it would ruin the view of DC from the Arlington National Cemetary if it was built there, and so had it built slightly out of the Arlington sightline.
One might ask, and justly so, if FDR's adjustment of the building site placed the Pentagon a tad askew of the ideal geometric location for the reason given, or was the adjustment meant to put the location "spot on."
Interesting questions, no?
FDR, by the way, was a freemason.