Interesting broader discussion here. The earliest surviving topographical (known-)world maps tend to show the map creator's country/city in the centre, and many are circular around that point. Wikipedia's Early World Maps page has some useful illustrations in this regard. While that may have had a political motive, there's also an eminently practical one, because then you're able to draw the world moving out from where you started.

Into the medieval period, European maps often had the eastern end of the Mediterranean as their central point, because of its significance for the dominant Christian religion there at the time, and were drawn as circles or ovals out from that area.

If the region around your home site ends up larger and more detailed, that's at least as likely because you'll have more, and far better, information about that area than any other, which you might visit - if at all - maybe once in a lifetime for a few hours to days, in ancient to medieval times. So there doesn't always need to have been a political-patron motive there, significant though that undoubtedly was for some early cartographers.

Maps for planning intercontinental aircraft journeys are still prepared with the originating airport at the centre, and extend out in a circle from there, for instance, to allow the selection of the great-circle line required to reach the destination in the minimum of time, using the least fuel possible.

It shouldn't create a misalignment if you use the snap grid properly, but you may need to mask the second grid in places. Or you could just draw one grid across all, and mask those areas of the grid that lie beyond the structure's walls.

As with most things in CC3+, there isn't just one option for solving issues like this - it's which one you're more comfortable with that typically wins the day.

Economic and wildlife symbols often get left out - and even when the overland styles do include some, they can be quite selective. They're often useful, and more helpful for GMs than simpler dot-type place-markers.

Ruins, and different types of ruin (so you could build up to a ruined city, say). Could include giant statues (like the Sphinx or the Colossus of Rhodes).

Ships, sea monsters, reefs, whirlpools, etc., to decorate the oceans.

Flat-topped mountains (like mesas), volcanoes, lava flows, glaciers.

A few ideas only, but maybe something to spark some further thoughts from yourself, or others here?

If you're finding the mapping a drag, and not really enjoying it, it may be worth considering a broader-brush approach to the city overall - such as the Watabou style, that shows general areas only, with just a few important places highlighted, roads and general layout. Then if you feel so inclined, you could add detailed areas for selected spots as separate maps - that way, you don't need to worry about how the map looks zoomed out, and can pick area sizes to better suit the time and energy you have available for detailed mapping.

As Sue said, what you've shown here looks good in detail, but if it's not inspiring you, it may be worth a rethink, if only for next time.

I like the idea of the individual structures. There are times when it would be nice to have that option with some of the overland styles, so you could have smaller settlements - and indeed even larger ones - with more individual character, especially for smaller area maps (which, to be fair, isn't really what most overland styles are geared for). Other styles work well with just a single set of settlement symbols, however (makes recognising the different types much easier!).

An all-map greyscale RGB Matrix effect usually works fine to convert colour to black and white - that's what I did here with some hex maps, rather longer ago than I'd thought!