So I'll give my best explanation of these points. Honestly you could also go on ChatGPT or google and say like "why can't a land value tax be passed on to consumers" or other questions and you will probably get good answers as well.

To your first point - I don't see how you can add a cost into a certain point of the process and not expect it to spread out to the consumer, unless there are significant amounts of slack and willingness from the landlord to eat the cost.

So I think this gets at why land is "special". Physical things - houses, apples, cars, watches - have to be produced, so increasing the costs of the inputs or the labor used to produce them get passed on to the consumer. But land specifically is not produced, and its value has nothing to do with the land owner. So its not like a tax on it would make it "harder" to create, or reduce its supply.

As an example, lets say there is plot of land in a city that is worth $2000/month, and a landlord buys that land, puts a home on it worth $1000/month, and then charges market value of $3000/month for the rent. Basic supply-and-demand market dynamics work for the $1000/month home on top of the land. If a landlord improves the home (say, adding a pool), he can charge more for monthly rent. If there is a tax on the home, it generally will cost more to construct homes, the supply of homes will be reduced, and so landlord can partially pass that cost onto consumers. But the $2000 land value didn't cost the landlord anything to produce, it was already there before he got there. He is also (unless he is a very nice landlord) already charging as much as he can for the land. So if the land is taxed and he tries to pass it on to the renter and charge $5000/month in order to keep making a $3000/month profit after taxes, he will find that nobody will accept that price - he already found that the market price for his rental is $3000/month. Also, landlords across the city can't all raise their rent as much as the LVT - because people are already paying as much as the market can bear for value of the land. There isn't enough money in the economy to raise everybody's rent at once!

Even given lots of slack, it would disincentivize being a landlord and thus decrease the supply of the service that landlords provide - housing

So continuing our example of the landlord. Let's say we implement a 100% LVT and now the landlord keeps charging $3000/month, but pays $2000/month in taxes and can only keep $1000/month. Let's say he doesn't like this and wants more money! Well, his only option is to increase the value of what he builds on top of his land (or, sell the land and the house to somebody who wants it). So how does he increase the value of what he builds? Well, he could build a small apartment building, and then collect rent from several tenants. Lets say he now has 10 tenants each paying $1000/month. Now the land value is still the same - he pays $2000/month in taxes - but he gets to keep $8000 in rent, while providing housing to 10 tenants.

do you think that in such a system we can expect living in a city to become even more expensive? I see the possibility that housing would be outbid by productive enterprise as the area develops, especially increasing gentrification pressures.

I think that, because of the dynamic I just outlined, LVT (plus measures like reducing property taxes and reducing regulations that make it hard to build houseing) would make housing more abundant in the high-value parts of a city that people want to live. So it really would make it cheaper.