Luz – 70s and 80s

This is the final set of photos that I have. It shows Luz in the 70s and 80s. I will need to keep my eye open for some that cover the next 2 decades.

Here is the view over Luz beach from Avenida dos Pescadores.

The Avenida is still being treated as a two-way road for cars on what looks like a baked-earth surface. On the beach, the number of tourists has increased. There are still fishing vessels with sails, but they are now competing for space with the tourists.

The photo itself looks like it is over-saturated. The colours look more vivid than life. I remember this effect from colour film back in, say, the 1980s.

This undated photo is obviously some way into the development of Luz. The fishing fleet seem to have shrunk. The tourist trade seems to have grown.

On the right hand side, about half-way up, there is a new white complex. As far as I can tell, that is due south of Rua Direita.

The building in brown or grey just above that is very distinctive. The ground floor only fits one building in Luz, and that is the building in which the Ocean Club 24hr reception is located. The building must still have been under construction, as the facade is lacking cladding or whitewash.

That brown building is 2-storey. The Ocean Club building is 3-storey. That means there must have been a major redevelopment at some time. That is no significant issue. The next photo will show another large chunk of development on the ground, but still no sign of the Ocean Club complex. So this photo pre-dates what is thought of now as being the Ocean Club by some years.

This is the most up-to-date on the historical photos I have of Luz. This has lots of additional development, though still no real sign of the Ocean Club. The area to the east of the church remains undeveloped, as does the area to the north of Rua Direita, where the bulk of the Ocean Club would go.

Luz Tur, the multi-storey, is in the process of being finished off.

The current Supermercado Baptista advert says it was established over 40 years ago (pre 1977) but I cannot make out a sign of it.

To the right of the fish processing factory is a building which itself is nearly completed, but the commercial units on the ground floor have yet to be finished. In modern times, these are the Lazuli, a small internal ice-cream shop, and the Habana. The latter is where you can see the web cam of Luz at http://www.algarveluzbay.com/

The building on the beach in front of the fish factory and the Habana must be the Paraíso. Their current advert says it has been a family-run business since 1965. Both of the incarnations of the Paraíso that I have seen had a strictly rectangular footprint, so this wobbly blob must have been replaced years ago.

There are two other buildings on the beach, beside the little group of 3 cars. One can be identified as the Rocha Negra restaurant. The other I don’t know about. Both of these are long gone.

A couple of things are missing from the photograph. The Roman villa/fish processing plant beside the Avenida dos Pescadores has not yet been discovered. I will need to check when that was excavated.

The other missing object that intrigues me is the Luz water tower. Luz had by now become quite a large village, and it must have had a water supply somehow. The Roman and later fish processing plants must have had a water supply. There was a well (pouço) located near to the centre of the photo (Rua do Pouço, Travessa do Pouço, Beco do Pouço). Perhaps the Fortaleza and the fish factories hauled water by hand from the well, perhaps not. But a Luz of this size was not relying on well water, so how was it getting in?

ETA. Baptista opened a supermarket in Rua Calheta on 16 April 1966 The supermarket moved to Luz Tur in 1974. That is why it is not in the photo. In Sep 2000, it moved to its own building in Rua Gentil Martins.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Luz – 70s and 80s

  1. Nothing to do, as ever.
    Sil, what do you think Brietta would say if to her “there was no active investigation into Madeleine’s case or an active search for her being carried out, with he exception of that being paid for by Madeleine’s Fund; that is no myth – that is disgraceful fact”, someone (forgetting the files consulted by Isabel Duarte in 2010, proving that the information got in and was examined) replied : the MCs had the possibility to ask for the instruction phase, though the MP didn’t expect they would, since Kate refused to answer the 48 questions, but anyhow they could have surprised the MP and required that crucial phase which ends by the very enlightening contradictory debate.
    We can understand that they wanted first thing to be freed from their arguido status, but if the police stopped working on the case, it was the MCs’ choice.

  2. All getting a bit mixed up here.

    The McCanns made choices. An awful lot of them seem extremely poor choices. I have just watched a Panorama from Nov 2007, when the parents were arguidos, and had returned to England. It was actually not bad on how things made it into the media.

    The discussion on MoJ continues in traditional vein. Supporters cherry pick their view. It is difficult for me to recognise anyone I could label as a dyed-in-the-wool critic.

  3. The refusal to answer the 48 was advised by the lawyer (who reasonably advised GMC to do the same), it was a lesser evil, but it was obviously evil. Everybody would think that they had something to hide and the police would have to try and discover what it was. It revealed that the lawyer didn’t trust his clients (he was never heard of any more in the MC case, though a successful lawyer in his area) and, as his mission was to defend them, not to protect MMC’s rights, he couldn’t but advise them not to reply. I doubt that they debated on the topic.
    You’re not forced to obey your lawyer… GMC didn’t. Good lawyers don’t defend their client on another line than the client’s chosen one. It is basic, lawyers just have to observe if their client’s point is defendable or not and, if it is, defend it up to the end.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s