Something I never understood is why, when small and mid-size cities all over the country had vacant or under-utilized commercial real estate available, we demanded a NEW building. From what I've read, the Crossville building has no architectural features unique to our requirements -- in fact, we probably have no unique architectural requirements. But we still paid an architect when stock plans might have made sense.
Buying an older but sound building somewhere in the rust belt or even snagging a long-term lease at bargain rates didn't seem to be fully explored. As I remember, the main "competition" was a huge white elephant structure, which seemed somewhat a straw horse (excuse the mixed metaphors) to me.
It was like the decision was made, and from then on, discussion was held to be invalid because it was "water under the bridge".
I hope my memory is faulty about this period in USCF planning.