Then and now: A part of Bijou evolves
Highway 50 and Takela spring 2004. Photo/Bill Kingman
Until April 2004, the beige cabin and adjacent two-story green building facing the stoplights on Highway 50 at Takela Avenue in South Lake Tahoe had housed various businesses. Between them and the beach behind it were a few aging cabins and residences.
Disappearing buildings. Photo/Bill Kingman
Two months later, most of these buildings were gone.
Condominiums obscure the view. Photo/Bill Kingman
By the following spring, construction was under way on a condominium development.
Safeway controls the corner. Photo/Bill Kingman
Today, Safeway operates the gas station, the traffic signals are updated, and new pedestrian crossings have been added.
The area more than 90 years ago. Photo/Theresa and Darrell Eymann collection
If you had stood on that construction site in the 1920s or 1930s and were looking east toward Nevada, you would be facing the entrance to Connolley’s Bijou Inn and beach.
— Bill Kingman
the 4th of July party’s at Joe Turners were awesome.
banger on the beach was the title on the ticket to get in.
BILL, Those old cabins behind the beige house out front were cool! Lots of trees and right next to the lake. Too bad they got knocked down for a condo development.
Another old Tahoe diamond in the rough from way back when that is destroyed to make way for new buildngs.
So while I’m at it with the loss of another Tahoe landmark,
SAVE THE BARTON HOUSE!!! OLS
This condo project in my opinion was the worst project the TRPA ever approved. It is like a wall blocking the Lake so much for the scenic corridor the TRPA always talks about. I am also in agreement with OLS save the Barton House. However this is most likely another piece of history that will be bulldozed without any input from the community.
Agree, Fifty year. It’s like, 90% coverage, and they didn’t even have to provide an actual sidewalk outside their development for people to walk by. It’s ugly, and it’s wall to wall massive.
And before one of my stalkers says something about me wanting government control over development, I don’t. I just don’t believe that the agencies should be approving crap like that while they won’t let some poor shlub on a back street in Meyers add a small deck to his house. That’s the kind of garbage that ticks everybody off.
Dog, I am not sure but what probably happened is that property already had 90 percent coverage and under the rules they were allowed to redevelop to what its old coverage was. But the good news that under the new rules decks may exceed the existing coverage rules under certain instances.