When Hurricane Katrina flooded much of New Orleans in 2005, I watched the refugees pouring out of the city and wondered why any of them would rebuild there as opposed to the higher ground a couple hundred miles away in Baton Rouge, Shreveport, or various parts of Texas, Arkansas, or Mississippi that are not disaster-prone, and which are also cheaper to live in than N.O. The whole future of the city seemed questionable since it was (a) already largely destroyed, and (b) still below sea level, and (c) facing all sorts of new financial problems now that about 30% of its taxpayers had left.
As it turns out, the
population of N.O. has been growing since Katrina, and finally exceeded its pre-Katrina numbers in 2021. New stick-house construction has been going in below sea level, even as the land continues to subside and the ocean continues to rise.
The assumption is that new levees will keep New Orleans livable for the foreseeable future, much like Galveston's heroic efforts to build a massive seawall, lift buildings, and pump in up to 17 feet of sand after the
1900 hurricane kept it safe for the following 123 years (so far). I don't believe that assumption, but enough people do.
When it comes to Miami, Charleston, Washington D.C., New York City, Houston, faultline cities in CA, etc. I think we'll see a similar pattern. Inevitable destruction will be followed by very expensive fortifications, which will be followed by even more people moving to the previously destroyed area. The destruction itself opens up the possibility for a city to become a mostly-new boomtown, full of development, and of course that attracts even more people. Apparently this growth prospect is sufficiently attractive to overcome high insurance costs, the high costs of fortifications against the risk, and the continued risk to life and limb from living there.
Expect more Katrina-like mass casualty events, followed by economic booms and the migration of people into the disaster zone.