San Francisco might be a good case study for NO.
The earthquake and fire in 1906 devastated the city, most buildings were gone.
The city had grown up in a haphazard way and some things couldn't be fixed the in the cities present form.
The earthquake and fire gave them the blank slate needed to build it back much better, old problems were fixed.
The city came back much faster than most thought possible.
Will NO do the same?
Chicago is another good example of rebuilding after a hideous disaster. The Fire of 1871 brought total devastation, but Chicago was rebuilt and changed the building codes as well.
NO could end up looking a whole lot different.
Maybe it will have canals through the city, like Venice.
It could be smaller if they upgrade the levee system. Which incidentally is not a good idea as I understand the winds that hit the city were a CAT 2. The buildings will not survive a CAT 4 wind storm so why protect them from a flood that comes after they have been blown away?
My guess is that it will.
As I said, there are going to be a ton of construction jobs, IT jobs, infastruction rebuilding type jobs, all of that.