I'm equally confused. The initial example takes only land use into account, but you expanded the example with food availability (trade ships exist, but whatever let's assume it's an island in a vacuum...), and when that wasn't enough you expanded it once more to farming animal rearing. So let's stick with that.
Are you advocating that houses would be better for farming and animal rearing given the lesser land availability?
In the apartment example, would it be inconceivable for the much greater surrounding land to be co-opted for farming and animals?
Who said the houses would have a sewer line and not septic tanks?
If we're talking about an island in a vacuum, then that septic tank would need to be routinely emptied somewhere.... which, surprise, means dumping it into the sea.
I’m saying there’s a reason why we have been building villages in village shapes and not in apartment shapes.
Because land in villages is typically owned by several different families who are unwilling to share it. If land boundaries were not a thing, chances are that villages would be highly centralised.
at this point does it matter? the status quo wants her out, so anti-semite is the label they will give