this visualisation is a little disingenuous as it doesn't really set out that by the time we potentially see that kind of sea level rise most of those buildings either will have been replaced or will have collapsed.
Also makes a good case that we don't just need emissions reduction, we need geoengineering to completely stop temperature rise.
I wish they said what the timescales they were projecting over are; without that, the images aren't really useful except to convince people that didn't need convincing in the first place. Even a moderately skeptical person is likely to be turned off by non-specific alarmism. ("This building will be underwater in the future" is less helpful than "this building will be underwater if not protected due to X feet of sea level rise projected by 20YZ".)
However, sea level rise may well be a serious problem even in the relatively near term. Climate.gov projects 1 meter of sea rise by about 2050 in the worst case and about 2100 in a moderate-emissions scenario. I don't know how many of those buildings are in low-lying areas that would be affected by 1 meter of rise, but I figure most of those buildings are going to still be around. Climate.gov doesn't project further than 2100, but it's pretty clear from the graph that the long-term trends out to 2200 and 2300 and so on are probably not good.
Except we don't have working geoengineering yet. If we did, that would be great, and that should end the bickering back and forth whether this is even happening. But we don't and we don't have a timeline to when we will. So good luck with that.
Also, here is the linked scientific paper -- from the same research team, published yesterday -- entitled "Unprecedented Threats to Cities From Multi-century Sea Level Rise" https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2e6b