Is this a repeat of a previous incident .? The first was rumoured to have been not so accidental because it cleared squatters who initiated the market. Much of it rebuilt but controlled by vague " legitimate administration " but also positioned  marginally further back enabling road widening works including storm water infrastructure etc.

Well behind the immediate roadside recreation of original style of  sites there has been significant investment  in the construction of a comparatively sophisticated elevated  roofed series of structures with level concrete  flooring and  wide vehicle access and  some improved degree of ventilation than existed  under  corrugated  iron roofing barely 2 meters above head height and occupants squeezing through pitted and uneven corridors expecting customers to give way.

The developed area is separated from the rear roadside encampment by a raised "grassy " strip which no doubt conveniently  prevented fire  from encroaching .

At  roadside there has also been built a block of accommodation  units which by virtue of zero aesthetic appeal are  no doubt intended for rent by the more successful entrepreneurs .

I do have sympathy for those who have lost even a tenuous style of existence but I doubt  many have lost material investment.

The sheer volume of  stock of various classifications will be  "maybe? " insurance write-offs  for the limited number of actual "owners" who collectively profited from low paid "staff" who had the dubious priviledge of unsanitary occupation with infants and young children who by virtue of being illegals only a few  kilometers from the Cambo border could only learn "survival lessons" .

Iconic in a sad way but probably given unseen negative aspects a fire may have cleansed in the same way  the Fire of London reportedly brought to an end the  Great Plague ? For those Isles at least.

 

 

 

 

Overly long sentences.

 

4 out of 10

Must try harder.