Artificial islands exists, but need constant upkeep (adding more material as it's eroded/reclaimed by the sea). Those don't float, they're anchored to the sea bed. Things that do float need even more upkeep, because a larger part of their surface area comes in contact with saltwater, which is very good at ruining everything it touches. Ship maintenance is expensive. Floating city maintenance would be staggeringly expensive. I can imagine it being nearly as complex as building a city on the moon.
You have to be stuck somewhere where you're exceptionally short on land for expansion into water to make sense.
Seriously, though, a lot of big cities are or were ports, have centres near the coast, and are constrained from growing further inland by geological features or transport time. Extending those cities out to sea, by reclamation or on floats, is at least superficially appealing.
Most people with any familiarity with engineering or marine environments would find the concept of floating cities as a terribly impractical idea, at first look, do the cost and complexity. It would make far more sense to build a city in a desert and build a megaproject to bring it water from the ocean.
I would agree floating cities has some sci-fi fantasy appeal. cool setting for a book or cartoon, where one could ignore the real implications. Not unlike space stations or moon bases in that respect.
Reclamation could be interesting in a limited number of circumstances but realistically we would be better served by improving transit inland. Even in Europe, there is a ton of room for improvement to connect rural areas to cities which would alleviate much of the burden that people feel to live closer to work and commerce.
An exaggeration, but the point is that floating-stuff has a whole bunch of maintenance headaches and extra-expenses which most people don't anticipate, and I imagine the problem will be _even worse_ when it comes to floating city houses/blocks.