Learning from History: A Look Back at the Hurricane of 1921
It is amazing that in just the last edition of the Northeast Journal we explored the impact of Tropical Storm Debby on St. Petersburg and the state of city flood control planning. We ended that article with the observation that “while the storm served as a good test of the extensive city storm and wastewater improvements to date, it also served as another warning of the urgent need to fully implement the Stormwater Master Plan with all deliberate speed, and to accelerate planning for mitigation of major storm surge.”
Little did we know how soon the next tests would come.
Tropical Storm Debby impacted St. Pete on August 5, a near-50-year storm event, dropping almost 12 inches of rain in parts of the city in 30 hours, and generating a 3.4-foot surge. On September 26, the city was impacted by Category 4 Helene. Despite landing 172 miles north, it generated a surge measured at 6.3 feet above high tide at Albert Whitted Airport. Other areas of the city reported a surge of 7.2 feet.
Then just 12 days later Hurricane Milton made landfall 34 miles south of St. Pete. Even without the “direct hit,” the storm brought winds of a little over 100 mph (mid-level Category 2), and a record “1,000-year” rainfall event with 18.75 inches in parts of the city over two days. Areas previously regarded as “stormproof” were flooded. Some 5.9 million gallons of wastewater were spilled, most of it into the bay.
St. Petersburg had not experienced such a weather impact since the Tarpon Springs Hurricane of 1921. That hurricane at one point reached Category 4 status, with winds of 140 mph while out over the Gulf. The National Weather Service estimates the hurricane made landfall with winds of 120 mph (mid-level Category 3). Winds rapidly declined afterwards, falling to 75 mph by the time they reached Tampa. Karl H. Grismer’s 1948 history of St. Petersburg recorded sustained winds of 68 mph with gusts exceeding 100 mph. Rainfall levels are unknown but described in the literature as incessant over two days. The barometer fell to 28.41. The biggest known difference between Milton and 1921 was surge. The surge of the Tarpon Springs Hurricane was far worse than Milton (no positive surge) and Helene, at six to eleven feet.
The 1921 hurricane left windows broken and power and telephone lines down all across the county. The greatest damage in St. Pete happened along the waterfront where boats were smashed against the docks and seawalls or sunk outright. The St. Petersburg Municipal Pier was badly damaged. Hundreds of buildings were unroofed. On the Gulf side, the Pass-a-Grille and Seminole Bridges were destroyed. Hotels there were lost and many other buildings along the barrier islands demolished. Orchards saw thousands of boxes of fruit on the ground. Fortunately, loss of life was limited to two people in St. Pete and perhaps another six in other areas of the county. Caladesi Island was formed from Honeymoon Island in the Dunedin area. The new channel between the islands was aptly called Hurricane Pass.
As we rebuild from Helene and Milton and plan to better deal with future storms, let’s step back in time for a moment to see how folks dealt with the 1921 hurricane. The first thing one notices is the lack of advance information. With Milton the public had five-day’s notice. The governor declared a state of emergency governor on October 5, and hurricane warnings were issued for the West Coast of Florida on October 7. With the 1921 hurricane the public had one-day’s notice, buried in obscure language on page two of the St. Petersburg Times (predecessor of the Tampa Bay Times).
The 1921 hurricane made landfall on Tuesday, October 25. The Times reported on page two that very day, but before the hurricane made landfall that night, “The tropical storm which was reported Monday to be moving towards St. Petersburg failed to reach here with any force Monday night.” It was also stated that hurricane warnings were ordered Monday for the West Coast of Florida. As noted by the National Weather Service, without the support of modern technology, such as satellites, radars, computer graphics, and mathematical models, the forecast for such an event was extremely difficult, dependent entirely on sparse marine and land observations.
On October 27, effectively one day after the hurricane, the Times ran a 16-page edition under a full-page banner headline, “City Recovers from Grip of Tropical Hurricane.” Eight articles appeared on page one about the storm including:
“Downtown Section Gets Light and Power”
“Fruit Damage May Be Heavy Growers Say”
“Pass-A-Grille Loss in Gales Is $50,000”
“Business Life Nears Normal; Streets Clear of Storm Mess”
“Survivors of Ship Tell Their Story”
“Clearwater Swept by Fury of Storm”
“Loss at Gulfport Is Near $100,000”
An editorial accompanying this edition titled “Facing the Facts” reflected, “Ordinarily free from severe storms of any sort, St. Petersburg has built carelessly in some instances. To be more exact, has often built for the day rather than tomorrow and has been guilty of the type of construction which all rapidly growing cities are heir to. Many places throughout the North have storms just as severe as that which swept St. Petersburg this week…. But because of the frequency of such storms, these places have built accordingly. St. Petersburg will profit by the lesson and will add to its many good buildings many more equally substantial and equally durable.”
Hurricane News Coverage
Immediately after the hurricane a debate broke out about how much to report. Local business interests were concerned that too much information about the storm’s effect would seriously discourage the tourist trade upon which the city depended. One real estate broker even stated that it was “absolutely criminal” to even mention anything in local news coverage of the hurricane. Some of this concern may have stemmed from the Times publication during the storm of a special edition erroneously reporting that nearby Pass-a-Grille had been “wiped out” with the death of 15 to 150 persons. The city council (then called a commission) even discussed eliminating the word “hurricane” from the minutes and replacing it with “storm,” although this was not done. The Chamber of Commerce and others urged residents to send postcards to their friends in other parts of the country to tell them St. Petersburg “has weathered a tropical hurricane and is still on the map,” and to “advertise our optimism and pluck.”
In the same October 27 edition summarizing the damage, the Times addressed these viewpoints: “…the storm which swept Pinellas Peninsula was a severe one and the damage it did was great. It is silly to attempt to say anything else…. In their opinion, the newspapers should stultify themselves by printing only half the truth or none at all…. It was the newspaper’s duty to furnish this news to the people as completely and thoroughly as it was able to do, even under the adverse circumstances. And we are publishing a newspaper.” Five days later the Times wrote in an editorial titled “Faith Unshaken,” that trading in real estate had resumed “on the same steady basis as prior to the storm and not a sale pending or in prospect was affected.”
However, it is noted that while the Times comprehensively reported on the damage on October 27, coverage quickly disappeared from the front page afterwards. Contrary to the repetitive front-page coverage of Helene and Milton we have seen in the Tampa Bay Times, the 1921 St. Petersburg Times published only one article regarding the hurricane in 14 editions between October 29 and November 16, out of an average of approximately 20 front page articles each day. Also, the Times was not speaking just to those living in St. Petersburg, but to “thousands of friends of St. Petersburg in the north.” According to the paper hundreds of visitors returning home at the end of the winter tourist season changed their subscriptions from the Daily Times to the Sunday Times and had that mailed to their home.
On October 30, five days after the hurricane, the Times editorialized “reports are always tinged with inaccuracy and that when the storm has passed and the sun shines again the damage takes a minimized aspect.” The editorial went on, “The citizens of St. Petersburg are not down-cast and [tourists] should not be. Come right ahead on your visit to St. Petersburg knowing that when you arrive the damage done by the storm king will have been repaired to such a degree that that you will never know he passed this way.” The column went on prophetically: “Know also that weather bureau experts declare that this storm, which we must admit was the worst in the history of the section, is not likely to be repeated in the lifetime of any of us now living.”
Frank Pulver, owner of the Detroit Hotel and soon the new city mayor, was in New York at the time of the hurricane. Upon his return he commented about the alleged storm exaggeration: “No matter what these rumors happened to be, they were not harmful to St. Petersburg. It was publicity and it was good publicity because it proved to the world the importance of this city as a tourist resort.”
As it turned out thousands of tourists came to the city that winter, according to Grismer many just to see what damage had been done. In fact by January there was little to be seen as most of the damage had been repaired, at least in the city limits at that time. Even the Municipal Recreation Pier had reopened. And all of this with no mention of National Guard, FEMA, Red Cross, and other significant outside assistance.
Centrality of the Piers
Central to the recovery effort was the rebuilding of the piers. At the time the city had three piers downtown: the Municipal Recreation Pier, the Fountain of Youth Pier near the end of 4th Avenue South, and the railroad pier at what is today Demen’s Landing, known at the time as the ACL Pier (Atlantic Coast Line Railroad). Collectively, these piers provided permanent residents with recreation, contributed to the city’s commerce as shipping points, and most importantly provided a recreational amenity to the tourist trade. It was vital to get them up and operating as quickly as possible.
On October 31, six days after the hurricane, work began on rebuilding the Municipal Pier. Also, all but three of the boats sunk in the downtown yacht basin had been refloated. On November 7, the city commission ordered work to repair the Northshore seawall to proceed at once.
Not only was all this soon accomplished, but this feat was further topped by the city’s decision to build a new “Million Dollar” pier. On Oct 29 the Times reported that the city commission instructed the city’s public utilities director “to begin work on plans for a big concrete pier, to cost from $500,000 to $1,000,000” to replace the repaired Recreation Pier. “Plans of this pier, also ought to be ready, to show our visiting friends…. The commission is to be publicly commended for this forward-looking step and should be given the hearty support and advice of every good citizen who wants St. Petersburg to continue in her progressive growth toward greater success.” The Million Dollar Pier became a realty five years later.
St. Petersburg Came Up Smiling
Also among the many front-page articles mentioned above published on October 27 was one titled “City Comes Up Smiling After Storm Passes.” This quasi-editorial, possibly written by William L. Straub who was then Times vice president, stated, “St. Petersburg came up smiling. For nearly 80 hours, there had been an almost incessant downpour of rain; the torrents had fallen, the winds had spent their fury, leaving in their wake death and destruction, ominous clouds had hovered over the city and scenes that were calculated to truly try the souls of mortal men had been witnessed, but when the mist had cleared away, the clouds disappeared and the great blow ended there stood in the midst of it all, Gibraltar like, the indomitable will, spirit and energy that had made St. Petersburg the queen of the West Coast of Florida…” After a summary of the damage done, the column concluded: “[That] St. Petersburg will profit by the disaster which has befallen her is not questioned. All destroyed buildings, piers and other places will be rebuilt, and the builders will erect with a view of preventing a recurrence of the destruction just suffered. It is not possible to prevent a repetition of the storm for that is something over which human beings exercise no control, but building for greatest possible resistance will minimize the storms which may come in after years. In other words when the resurrection is completed it will show a better and greater St. Petersburg.”
As in 1921, Helene and Milton also cause us to further reflect how we plan for future development. Not so much with respect to construction materials as much has already been done there. Of greater concern now is thinking and planning differently about where we build, and especially giving urgent emphasis to prevention and mitigation of both intense rainfall and surge.
Find a detailed interactive experience via the National Weather Service on the 1921 hurricane at tinyurl.com/1921Hurricane.
Will Michaels is a former director of the St. Petersburg Museum of History and the author of The Making of St. Petersburg and The Hidden History of St. Petersburg. Contact him at wmichaels2222@gmail.com or 727-420-9195.
