You know, I missed the most obvious answer to the Patricians wanting to distribute land. Just deal with it every time it comes up.
Slave societies dealt with slave rebellions every couple of generations for several thousand years without changing their economic model. We can deal with the Patricians bitching and moaning and needing to be put back in their box every so often.
That was obvious enough though?
History is an extended back and forth between the following:
-The Crown, the Crown Council nobility and the Bureaucracy always moved to take land back from the nobility where possible. However, this was always hugely unpopular with the upper nobility, more commonly, land was reclaimed from the lower nobility to the state via various strategems when the upper nobility didn't snap it up first.
-The upper nobility always moved to take land from the Crown, often by offering bribes and incentives. This was more successful against weak kings, which our system had sort of made very rare.
-The upper nobility always moved to take land from the lower nobility, frequently from conquest and inter-vassal warfare.
-The upper nobility steadily lost land to the lower nobility through inheritance as families expanded and holdings were spread out.
Ultimate long term result of this struggle: European Bordergore, where jurisdiction had nothing to do with administrative effectiveness or natural borders so much as where and how the various nobility gripped on.
China avoided this fate ironically through regular nomad invasions, where the nobility was simply wiped out and their land repossesed by a powerful conquerer, which allowed either the conquerer, or whoever drives them off to reclaim the land and then slowly fragment by doling it out again. They wound up having land split into relatively simple administrative districts instead.
We knew that they didn't as of the last time we had good ties with them...you know, back before we had high level cities either? Pretty sure we only heard the "2 or 3 cities" line back before the trelli war.
Hence, the river does not, in itself, enable block housing, because disease management was critical to doing so.
The two necessary elements of Block Housing then is:
-Disease resistance(we needed all three because we had stricter hygiene laws, but you can expect the Khemetri to need at least two)
--Aqueducts
--Baths
--Sacred Warding
-Food availability to city population
--Panem
--Food production natural wonder(Lowlands, Nile, China's Great Rivers)
--Bulk Transport(Harbors, canals, but later on railways should do similar things)
Thats why we can build aqueducts beyond city level, yes, but thats different than "can baths go above aqueduct level"
Is it though? It means that we prioritize health enough that we can deliberately overload infrastructure for public health purposes.
Aqueducts beyond city support level aren't too different from Baths beyond aqueduct support level. In aqueducts, the added cost reflects the technical difficulty of building larger and more extensive plumbing networks.
In baths the added cost reflects the costs of either manually bringing in additional water for their uses(which considering how much Baths cost, is substantially reflected by a doubling) or work efficacy losses from industries making use of waste water outflow
Like, I dont want to be a dick, but you really remind me of the people who were explaining to me how we were totally capable of casually stomping the Trelli back before our first disastrous war against them.
It would of course be nice if your analysis were spot on, but AN wouldnt hype these dudes so much if they were a bunch of babies.
Reminder that we absolutely COULD have done it, both times, if we had done the smart thing and gone straight for their city instead of "Hmm, I could punch them in the head or punch them in the foot, Imma punch the foot.", and then left us prosecuting a long land war with no surprise rather than a surprise attack on their capital before they realized they needed to defend themselves.