"Break in 17th Street Canal Levee is now 200 feet wide and slowly flooding the City of New Orleans. Huge sand bags are being airlifted to try to stem the rush of water in that area. The expectations are that the water will not stop until it reaches lake level."

You all have probably seen this. I'd like to offer a possibility of something that may happen.

If it really does get to lake level, does an argument start to grow about whether or not New Orleans is simply abandoned? At what point does the cost of rebuilding outweigh the cost of leaving the city be. It seems farfetched for me to say it, but it's something I've been thinking about for a while.

Not to mention, the risk of future damages due to future storms and potentially global warming (we can all debate it's factuality but even if it's a % chance, it's still a quantifiable risk).
when was the last time a city got completely destroyed? and not repopulated.  Pompey?
Well, when Atttila the Hun invaded Italy, he razed the coast city Aquileia. The survivors never returned to the city and started to live at the sea isles and lagoons near the coast. So, Venice was set. The name "Venice" come from a Latin phrase that can be translated as "Are you here too [hiding from the huns]?"
Managua, Nicaragua was destroyed in the 1972 earthquake.  My ex-wife said that the damaged buildings were abandoned.  This article states that only recently have these properties begun restoration.

http://library.thinkquest.org/17749/earthquake.html

My wife and I had this very conversation this morning.  Honestly, I don't know at what point you abandon a major US city that's been devastated by a natural disaster.  Clearly, there is such a point, but my gut instinct is that as bad as things are in New Orleans, we're not there.

Frankly, this is a classic case of a situation that can't be judged purely on economic terms.  How do you tell an entire city of that size, and particularly one with that much history and unique culture, that their city has been declared dead because the dollar cost to rebuild it is too great?  I honestly don't think I could do it, at any price.

Sunk Costs?

You'd have to have substantially more destruction to warrant abandoning the whole city.  No matter how bad the destruction is now, there's still lots of value there.  Bad joke, but the "sunk costs" of an American city are HUGE.  All the roads, for example.  The sewers, power grid, pumping stations, and the buildings that will survive with only moderate-to-light damage.  Some infrastructure will be damaged, but much of it can be repaired for much less than replacement cost.  Ditto for housing and businesses.  Wood frame houses will be destroyed by flooding but many other structures may need only a long hose, some new drywall, and electrical and plumbing repairs.

There's over 600,000 people in the NO area - they can't all leave.  And although the flooding will hit the old center of the city hardest, look on Google Earth - the suburbs of NO extend outward quite a distance, and those on the south side of the river or farther west will escape with little damage beyond that done directly by the hurricane (and direct hurricane damage is a risk no matter where you are on the Gulf Coast).

In any event, lots of folks will probably decide to move away, even if only a short distance up-river or to higher elevations.  For those that stay, the costs will rise, both emotionally due to continued anxiety and loss, and economically due to increased flood-control and emergency contingency costs - like LOTS more shelters - and falling property values.

It would, however, make sense to divert all or part of the Mississippi River into a new path away from the urban area and reduce the overall threat the city faces.  That would require LOTS of new or moved infrastructure, but still less than moving the entire city.

What good would redirecting the Mississippi do, when it looks like Lake Ponchartrain was the problem?
Resources.

NO faces threats from both the Miss. River and the lake, on opposite sides.  The levees along the River are actually higher than the levees on the lake.    If the threat from Miss. River floods was removed (or substantially reduced) more resources would be available to deal with the lake.