Hmm, I see what you're saying and I completely respect your opinion. I do see problems with a city like that near a waterfall. (Take this from someone majoring in the construction field so I know a bit.)

The risk of boaters and swimmers falling off and it does kinda remove the beauty of the landscape. Oh and eroding land isn't good for cities either. Also having a city near a waterfall like that isn't too useful for trading goods down the river because you need to be able to navigate that river for it to be useful and that's hard to do climbing down a giant cliff.



But I do come with counter arguments as well. In order for a city to be successful in those times, it would need to be near water and I assume the more water nearby for fishing, drinking, and other stuff which is useful and the area by the waterfall seems to be the widest. Also take into account the city interior. They may have thought sacrificing the beauty of the landscape was worth it to magnify the beauty of the city.



If I was the city's architect, I wouldn't have put such an important settlement by such a waterfall. Maybe a vacation town for royalty and nobility but not a major city (Especially a capital city.) and I definitely wouldn't put it on top of one but maybe near it.