I saw the movie 2012. Really cool kind of a bullshit movie -- exceptionally good bullshit movie. Mindless popcorn fun, as they say.
SPOILERS: As the film unfolded, we of the audience assumed (as per the deliberate red herrings strewn about by the director) that the government was building giant space ships. However, the real deal was that they were building giant arks. We of the audience never knew they were arks until John Cussack and his family finally made it all the way to China and to the Himilayan Moutains where the ships were beig secretly built. When they finally beheld the ships for the first time, one of John Cussack's son's said: "Dad? Why are there anchors hanging off the ships?" And Cussack said: "Because they're not space ships, they're arks." And that's when we ofthe audience had to readjust our understandig of what the terrible impending planetary event was going to be, and also readjust our understanding of how our heroes were going to survive it.
As for your question, I say no.
My perspective here is that if there were only a few hundred thousand people who survived on board those three super-tech arks, there would be no NEED of skyscrapers and for very large and very dense human cities the size of New York or London or Calcutta. There would also be no need of superhighways to interconnect all those not needed cities. (Sir Rob of the Vowels has already noted extacly these same observations upthread in Post #2.)
We would have to rebuild our new society as a heavilly agrarian one. As has also been noted, we would have to structure this new agrarian society either as a feifdom, or in some kind of socialized system of shared work. But such a society would involve los of small to medium-sized towns of mostly farming activities. Big cities would be non-existent. This mostly rural lifestyle of mostly small to medium towns would last for centuries.
Now I'm not saying we'd be livig in the dark ages. We'd maintain education and a certain standard of living (such as indoor plumbig and electricity) via the preparedness of whatever we brought on board the arks. But dense dense cities of hightech extravaganzas like Las Vegas and Broadway wouldn't exist at all. (And I know Bradway isnlt a city, but I'm focusig on the insane amount of electricity we pour into the lights of Vegas and the lights of Broadway.) Energy would be a huge issue. We would need an energy supply to activate and maintain for our new agrarian lifestyle. And I would hope that out of all the thngs they packed, a way to produce energy would have been of the highest priority.
It has also been noted upthread that we would not have as many critical raw metals in the ground as we did 400 years ago when the first signs of industrialism began to make their debuts on the scene of human society. Iron is growing very scarce, as is copper. And then there's oil (don't get me started on the oil!!!! --trust me!! You do NOT want me to start preaching about oil!!!! see my signature). Our current lack of metals would not allow such a free flowing and meandering repeat of the whole Industrial Revolution with the same luxury of excess in metal usages as we evidenced all through the past 350 years.
As for your suggestion that maybe new and hidden stores of metals could be thrust upward for us via the upheaving of all the Earth's techtonic plates, that's quite a dream, but I don't think it's realistic. Now I'm not a geologist, but it's my understanding that a) we have found all the deposits capable of being found, even the super deep ones which are all hovering just a few hundred yards above the first layers of magma where the crust ends and the mantle begins, and b) the formation of metal deposits requires loads of time and even the assistance of cosmic events like massive meteors smashig into the Earth, bringing with them massive loads of nickel and iron, etc. So it's my understanding that a mere shuffling of the plates won't spontaneously generate new metal deposits, but merely cause lots of nasty and inconvenient vulcanism.