In a survey of eighty-four Greek temples of the Classical period (480 to 338 B.C.), Gregory J. Retallack of the University of Oregon in Eugene studied the local geology, topography, soil, and vegetation — as well as historical accounts by the likes of Herodotus, Homer, and Plato — in an attempt to answer a seemingly simple question: why are the temples where they are?
No clear pattern emerged until he turned to the gods and goddesses. It was then that he discovered a robust link between the soil on which a temple stood and the deity worshiped there.
For example, Demeter, the goddess of grain and fertility, and Dionysos, the god of wine, both were venerated on fertile, well-structured soils called Xerolls, which are ideal for grain cultivation.
For me, this isn't a revelation: deities more relevant to a village or town's lifestyle will naturally have larger temples and shrines because they are tied more closely to the deity's sphere of influence. Demeter and Dionysos receive veneration in fertile regions because fertile regions have more reasons to venerate them. You don't just choose temple locations. As Mikalson states repeatedly in Ancient Greek Religion, temple sites evolve organically from small shrines and altars into larger sites as they gain importance (the only really essential parts of the shrine are the boundary marker and sacrificial space with the deity's name marked on it).
For this reason, I could see a modern-day temple to Dionysos in the upstate NY Finger Lakes Region, but I would not expect more than household shrines in a more urban location that doesn't depend on wine and grape juice production for a substantial part of its economy and tourism.
Even with my criticisms of this, I find it rather satisfying that scientists and archaeologists are devoting these sacred sites to so much study, especially when it validates religious practices that classicists have documented from a social perspective.