Managing Facilities in Historic Buildings

Version	Summary	Created by	Modification	Content Size	Created at	Operation
1		Anastasia Nikologianni	--	3263	2024-01-18 08:53:09	\|
2	Reference format revised.	Lindsay Dong	-26 word(s)	3237	2024-01-19 03:34:11	\|

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/land12112020

The challenges of historic building adaption for reuse are well documented and often refer to building fabric, listed status, historical significance, environmental sustainability, and structural layout as limitations to their successful re-development. However, few studies have explored how such issues manifest in the operational use of historic buildings developed for reuse, the significance on cities, and the long-term socioeconomic value.

historic building facilities urban land cities territories socioeconomic

1. Introduction

Historic Buildings (HBs) can be considered as having heritage, a broad concept that encompasses the importance of landscapes, places, or sites ^[1]. The heritage significance of places or built assets can be related to their cultural, historical, economic, or political importance ^[2]. For historic buildings, adaptive reuse is considered to be crucial, as it supports maintaining the significance of the historical assets, considers new usage requirements, supports sociocultural demands and environmental regulations, and offers an alternative solution for the growing demand in cities and regions ^[3]. As a form of sustainable urban regeneration, adaptive reuse can be a key solution to our cities by extending the building’s life while providing social and economic benefits for the urban territories and their communities ^[4]. However, the Heritage at Risk register for England highlights over 2000 entries of buildings, structures, or places of worship deemed to be at risk of dereliction through neglect, deterioration, or decline ^[5]. Adaptive reuse can increase the life and sustainability of a building with reductions in material use, energy consumption, and pollution associated with demolition; this suggests it is more cost-effective to convert old buildings to new uses than to demolish and rebuild them ^[6]. However, some argue that the biggest threats to HBs are added barriers, complications, and costs to planned adaptions associated with listing ^[3]^[7]. If a building cannot be adapted, it may limit its functionality, making it not investable and increasing the likelihood of further dereliction ^[8]. Therefore, there exists a tension between the desire or need to preserve HBs and their heritage and the business case to develop and maintain them and subsequently provide investment and ongoing protection for those sites through development, occupation, and maintenance. Such issues can potentially limit the range of new functions that can be imposed on the building ^[3]. However, the occupation and use requirements of a building and its users, and any subsequent impact on internal reorganisation requirements (for example, changes in staffing levels, additional environmental requirements, and updates to technology), can change over time and should ideally be considered in advance of any project but will inevitably need to be considered at later stages of the building life cycle ^[6]^[9]. While there may be existing studies on historic preservation and adaptive reuse, there is limited research that explores the practical strategies and economic implications of managing facilities in sustaining historical assets. Inevitably, facilities management (FM) is responsible for the efficient and sustainable operation of buildings over their entire life cycle. Furthermore, FM strategies can significantly impact the economic viability, environmental sustainability, and user satisfaction of historical buildings adapted for reuse. Indeed, historical buildings often face a delicate balance between preserving their heritage value and ensuring economic viability. Facilities managers are uniquely positioned to address this balance by implementing strategies that maximise asset value while safeguarding the historical significance of the building; this, therefore, places a spotlight on the role of facilities management (FM) in HB reuse and their capacity to adapt assets to the needs of the users with people, place, and process considerations ^[2]^[10]. Furthermore, it highlights the role of FM in the ongoing occupation and use of a listed building, given planning constraints associated with listed status.

2. Managing Facilities in Historic Buildings

2.1. Challenges within Historic Buildings and the Urban Fabric

It is argued that repurposing HBs is a more sustainable strategy than new construction ^[11]. Bullen and Love ^[6] argue that converting old buildings to new uses can be cheaper than demolishing and rebuilding them through retention of the buildings ‘embodied energy’ ^[6]. That is, building reuse can contribute to sustainability through the retention of existing structures and fabrics, as well as by improving the economic, environmental, and social performance of buildings and lowering material use, transport, energy consumption, and pollution ^[2]^[3]^[6]. However, cost is only one aspect of the spectrum, with environmental benefits gaining momentum in this field. The reuse of HBs can be of significant benefit for urban and territorial infrastructure, as they offer solutions in the current building/housing crisis and become a key sustainable solution. The extension of a building’s life avoids waste coming from demolition and, therefore, boosts the reuse of embodied energy ^[12]^[13]. The importance of HBs for the urban landscape does not limit itself to the local historical and cultural characteristics. However, it is being recognised as a vital solution for environmentally sustainable communities, reducing the environmental impact of buildings by increasing their lifecycle ^[14]. Existing older structures are more likely to contain greater thermal mass and so benefit from more passive forms of heating and cooling ^[15]. However, many HBs were constructed when energy costs were low, and there was no concern about climate change ^[16], meaning challenges, including regulatory, design, and technical factors, can affect their sustainable adaptability ^[2]. For example, Conejos et al. ^[17] used multiple case studies and in-depth interviews with industry experts to examine barriers to successful adaptive reuse projects in Australia ^[17]. Their results identify regulatory compliance and building design as challenges to HB reuse. Specifically, they highlight how hazardous materials and contamination can cause costly developmental delays and how sound and fire regulations require specific and integrated solutions to comply. However, adaptations to meet regulatory safety and access requirements can also be difficult due to the physical characteristics and layout of HBs. Finally, they cite HB knowledge capacity as a potential barrier to HB adaptive reuse. Therefore, whilst there may be some advantages to HB reuse in terms of economic and environmental sustainability, the development of HBs may not be without its own set of financially onerous challenges.

Maintaining cultural heritage and managing HBs come with complex challenges to stakeholder management. When one considers the adaption for reuse of HBs, the organisation proposing the development must consider the potential social impact on that asset. In that sense, the role of the FM is to carefully manage any proposed changes to an HB to avoid damaging or irreversibly destroying it for future generations ^[18]. Some argue that this emphasises ‘stewardship’ or ‘curatorship’ in the maintenance objectives of an FM team, suggesting an added layer of social responsibility for that asset’s upkeep and care ^[19]. Moreover, the tradition of cultural heritage designation and evaluation is as complicated as it is long and dominated by architects, town planners, conservationists, historians, accountants, analysts, and economists. Indeed, the practices of heritage professionals and statutory authorities can often seem unclear or inconsistent ^[20]. Therefore, from the outset, HBs emphasise the key role of the FM to HB reuse in mediating between a growing number of stakeholders and the added complexity of the technical and operational processes involving people and place ^[7]. Successful reuse of HBs should respect the different heritage values, spatial characteristics, socioeconomic impact, and associated policy guidance ^[21], although effective identification of end-users needs and concerns can prove challenging ^[6]. According to Hou and Wu ^[10], it was found that involving FMs during the planning phase of an HB reuse project provided operation-oriented advice to the design team on design and construction to understand the facility needs of users ^[10]. Their study recognised the strategic role of FM teams and, importantly, their relationship with the whole lifecycle of buildings. It is important to emphasise the role of FM in stakeholder management and how this is important in successful public involvement and service delivery, which is arguably important for the preservation of cultural heritage ^[21]. However, these points neglect to consider the future needs and demands of a building and its users and instead reflect decisions made at the design stage before building occupation and use.

2.2. Historic Buildings Adaptation and Reuse

Pintossi et al. ^[22] evaluated HB adaptions and reuse practices using a case study in Croatia ^[22]. Their work explored stakeholder perspectives of HB reuse challenges and proposed solutions to overcome them. Using the UNESCO Historic Urban Landscape approach as a framework, they considered issues from a multi-scale perspective, adopting a site, urban, and elsewhere approach to their analysis of a historic urban landscape adapted for reuse in Croatia. The challenges they identified were related to participation, capacity, regulation, finance, and knowledge. Importantly, the challenges identified were directly linked to the role of an FM, specifically, capacity-related challenges describing limitations in the available expertise, skills, and human resources for HB reuse and development. Equally, regulatory-related challenges highlighted difficulties in complying with local regulations, such as respecting historic materials and skills required for cultural heritage refurbishment. Knowledge and financial-related challenges were uniquely identified as evidence of overlapping challenges emblematic of strategic concerns. Finally, their participants offered potential solutions to some of the concerns raised. Interesting among them were capacity building, knowledge dissemination and production, and documentation of information because knowledge of HB construction methodologies and materials can influence proposed alterations ^[9]. However, their work missed those responsible for managing the challenges identified: the FMs. Such studies demonstrate that HB reuse requires strategic considerations and input from FMs and refer to the ongoing issues that could pose challenges after an HB development takes place. More importantly, most studies on HB adaptation consider the perspectives of architects and building engineers, so the solutions offered may have lacked a strategic and practical perspective due to the absence of occupants’ and building management perspectives.

Other constraints to adaptive reuse can include planning constraints, modern design requirements, access, and inflexible building design ^[15]^[17]. Indeed, Lynch and Proverbs ^[7] argue that a significant barrier to the sustained use of HBs is their accessibility to those with disabilities. They recognise that most of the literature which focuses on accessibility pertains mainly to altering the physical make-up of buildings to create access. Lynch and Proverbs ^[7] argue that, whilst improving accessibility may be appealing, physical alterations to HBs may not always be achievable ^[7]; providing access to HBs, which could cause irreparable damage, is not likely to gain local building consent because heritage legislation takes precedence over the Equality Act (2010) ^[7]. Moreover, this conflicts with the minimal change advocated by existing preservation strategies ^[23]^[24]^[25]. In that sense, Dyson and Matthews ^[9] advocate that matching the function of an HB to its new purpose will ensure a greater level of site integrity, which is maintained due to the limited need for structural change and, thus, limited expensive preservation work ^[9]. However, Dyson and Matthews’ assertion that the “good fit between the old and the new function of the building” is key to its success in reuse (^[9], p. 51) emphasises the existing HB literature’s focus on the design phase of a reuse project rather than how these ideas may impact the occupation and use of HBs.

Dyson and Matthew ^[9] identified that critical success factors of HB adaption suggest the determination of a “good fit” between old and new building functions, which means that the closer the match, the more likely an appropriate and successful conversion ^[9]. However, functionality in buildings requires understanding what exactly can be altered or changed because the flexibility of buildings to adapt to changing business needs or patterns of working can be a significant limiter on an FM’s capacity to support or meet those needs. Duffy ^[26] provides a model depicting the layered nature of building elements and their respective decision-making criteria and life cycles ^[26]. Simply, it describes the implications and constraints on different building layers and their temporal propensity to change. For example, the site of a building, its orientation, and its neighbourhood are decisions that can only really be made once within the lifecycle of the building, whereas decisions on building systems may be taken every 3 years. Finch ^[27] expanded this to include their work from 2009 and provides a ‘Typology of Change Readiness’ describing specific workplace flexibility and relevant building layers ^[27]. Therefore, even though constraints may exist, limiting what is permissible or possible in HB adaption, there remains a range of options to adapt, maintain, or improve space functionality in HBs.

2.3. Facilities Management for Historic Buildings

An important part of the building lifecycle is the functionality and appropriateness of the building and its resources. In that sense, building management and maintenance are important roles FMs play in the occupation and reuse of HBs. Shiem-Shin and Hee ^[28] suggest that central to the idea of FM as strategic support to an organisation is the extent to which the demand for space and facilities meets the needs of the business in terms of accessibility, functionality, condition, security, and, increasingly, sustainability ^[28]. Challenges for businesses in meeting these needs can include the accurate anticipation of future needs, the capacity for adjustment to changing demands, and the costs of facilities, both in terms of their performance and as long-term physical assets ^[7]^[9]^[27]^[28]. Effective and efficient utilisation of space is about matching demand for an appropriate workspace to support business activities and availability in terms of timing and duration of requirements ^[28]. However, space use patterns are changing, which may have implications for the way businesses procure and occupy space and the provision of resources to them ^[28]^[29]. In that sense, utilisation is not only a function of the efficiency of space layout but also the flexibility space affords the organisation in terms of user churn (the capability to support group, department, or function relocation) and changing patterns of work ^[28]. Consequently, this will ask questions of FMs responsible for effective and efficient space use of HBs; namely how HB spaces support users, and how users appropriately access HBs as the required business resources they should be. Additionally, maintenance of HBs is deemed essential to the longevity of any structure, with well-maintained buildings offering higher quality environments and limiting risks to dilapidation, demolition, and the social and economic losses attributed to HBs decline ^[2]^[30]. HB maintenance, management, and development require, in part, a passion for older buildings and tailored strategies that include an emphasis on stewardship, curation, and maintenance of the HB fabric and cultural significance ^[19]^[31]. Barnes ^[32] citing the IFMA, places FM in the centre of people, process, place, and technology, reflective of the multi-stakeholder perspectives prevalent in HB reuse, and recognises the role of FMs in understanding user needs and space use and their integration in the maintenance of building fabric, services, and contents ^[33]^[34]. Therefore, FM in HBs requires careful maintenance and effective management of the historic spaces under their custody if they are to remain effective and functioning assets.

All buildings should be appropriately maintained if they are to continue their functions, though some argue that the main principle of maintenance in HBs should prioritise conservation and preservation by promoting models of minimum intervention. Dan et al. ^[35] argued that heritage organisations and non-heritage organisations might differ in their cultural preservation philosophy ^[35]. They surveyed 20 non-heritage (e.g., housing associations, universities, and diocese) and 12 heritage organisations (e.g., NGOs, national agencies, and building trusts) about their maintenance practices. These were evaluated against the key elements of best practices for the maintenance of built cultural heritage ^[35], which identifies several factors of maintenance approaches. They conclude that both heritage and non-heritage organisations were falling short of best practice maintenance, though these differed between the non/heritage and non/commercial organisations. Specifically, they suggest heritage organisations lack systematic and integrated approaches to maintenance linking to wider corporate objectives, whereas non-heritage organisations adopted processes that may work against historic preservation.

Cruz et al. ^[36] suggested that HBs be protected through preventative maintenance and monitoring rather than extensive restoration and reconstruction. The maintenance-focused heritage building conservation model advocates an approach to maintenance appropriate for the preservation of HBs ^[36]. The model places maintenance at the centre of the essential components in conservation and is surrounded by relevant key drivers required for maintenance-focused conservation to function ^[23]. For example, monitoring through the effective use of tools and technology. Importantly, Cruz ^[36] places ‘Repairs & Restorations’ outside of the heritage maintenance cycle ^[36]. In doing so, it highlights the need to distinguish between maintenance and repair or replacement, suggesting that the latter will ultimately lead to an eroding of that which is important or the reason for a building’s designation as heritage. However, whilst such effort primarily focuses on strategic level considerations, reflecting elements of place, process, and technology, the purist focus on the preservation of heritage neglects the point of maintenance and repurposing in the first place—to preserve the functionality of a building ^[7]. Therefore, the perspective missing from both works mentioned above is that of the user or people. Therefore, whilst strategies to preserve the heritage value of an asset are important, their efficacy for the functionality of HBs, their impacts on use, and their impacts on user experience are not clear. In that sense, the FM perspective, at the intersection of people, process, place, and technology ^[24], could be made clearer.

2.4. Facilities Management for HBs Adaptation and Reuse: The Socioeconomic Gap

Mehr and Wilkinson ^[37] examined technical issues related to comfort, safety, and energy efficiency in HBs in Australia ^[37]. They recognise that user expectations in terms of technical standards and comfort levels can change over time and argue that HBs should adapt to those expectations if they are to remain sustainable and in use. Mehr and Wilkinson’s ^[37] results identified technical challenges relating to insulation, acoustic performance, and AC installation that did not compromise the architectural integrity and visual quality of the building ^[37]. These challenges pose risks to the usability of a building and, thus, require strategies to extend the working life of a building. Another study by Wang and Liu ^[21] aimed to establish an evaluation method of HB reuse and proposed adaptive reuse strategies based on complex adaptive system theory ^[21]. In so doing, they argue they provide the means to maximise the adaptive reuse of HBs whilst minimising stakeholder conflict. They analysed 32 HBs, taking testimony from 10 experts responsible for HB protection and reuse, 10 adaptive reuse researchers, 32 property owners, and 362 urban residents. Wang and Liu ^[21] argue that their results allow for a better understanding of adaptions to HBs and identify weaknesses that may threaten the applicability of HB reuse ^[21]. They suggest that this can systematically help key stakeholders plan for HB reuse. Specifically, their model highlights some useful approaches relevant to the FM of an HB. These include principal strategies for spatial efficiency, spatial quality, and utilisation of spatial features. However, as with Mehr and Wilkinson ^[37] above, Wang and Liu ^[21] do not consult with FM professionals engaged with the implementation of these strategies, and thus, their efficacy in an operational setting is not clear ^[21]^[37]. Therefore, whilst strategies exist to minimise the impact of challenges to HB adaption, reuse, and sustainability, the efficacy of those strategies and the impacts on users and operators of those buildings will need to be explored if sustainable HB reuse is dependent on successful implementation.

It has been recognised that the advantages of HB reuse may not be without their own set of numerous challenges for FMs. These challenges include a complicated array of stakeholders to manage, the impositions on HB flexibility and adaptions that may limit FM’s capabilities and the careful consideration of maintenance approaches, building use strategies and their impact on the historical relevance of HBs, the impact on space utilisation, and the impact on users of HBs. The existing literature reflects a recognition of the challenges and the considerations HB developers need to be aware of when developing HBs for reuse. However, questions remain over the impact of these challenges and the efficacy of the strategies for the ongoing occupation and use of HBs.

References

Historic England. Heritage Definitions. Available online: https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/hpg/hpr-definitions/ (accessed on 28 January 2022).
Adegoriola, M.I.; Lai, J.H.K.; Chan, E.H.; Amos, D. Heritage Building Maintenance Management (HBMM): A Bibliometric-Qualitative Analysis of Literature. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 42, 102416.
Shahi, S.; Esnaashary Esfahani, M.; Bachmann, C.; Haas, C. A Definition Framework for Building Adaptation Projects. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 63, 102345.
Giannakopoulos, D.; Karekou, Z.; Menegaki, E.; Tsilimantou, E.; Ioannidis, C.; Maistrou, E.; Giannikouris, A.; Moropoulou, A. Reuse of Historic Buildings in the Medieval City of Rhodes to Comply with the Needs of Sustainable Urban Development. Land 2022, 11, 1214.
England, H. Historic England—Heritage at Risk Register 2021, East of England. Available online: https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/heritage-at-risk/ (accessed on 21 August 2022).
Bullen, P.; Love, P. A New Future for the Past: A Model for Adaptive Reuse Decision-making. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2011, 1, 32–44.
Lynch, S.; Proverbs, D.G. How Adaption of Historic Listed Buildings Affords Access. Int. J. Build. Pathol. Adapt. 2019, 38, 589–605.
Elsorady, D.A. Adaptive Reuse Decision Making of a Heritage Building Antoniadis Palace, Egypt. Int. J. Archit. Herit. 2020, 14, 658–677.
Dyson, K.; Matthews, J.; Love, P.E.D. Critical Success Factors of Adapting Heritage Buildings: An Exploratory Study. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2016, 6, 44–57.
Hou, H.; Wu, H. A Case Study of Facilities Management for Heritage Building Revitalisation. Facilities 2019, 38, 201–217.
Dogan, H.A. Assessment of the Perception of Cultural Heritage as an Adaptive Re-Use and Sustainable Development Strategy. J. Cult. Herit. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2019, 9, 430–443.
Burnham, B. A Blended Finance Framework for Heritage-Led Urban Regeneration. Land 2022, 11, 1154.
Potsiou, C.; Ioannidis, C.; Soile, S.; Verykokou, S.; Gkeli, M.; Filippakopoulou, M. A Technical Tool for Urban Upgrading: An Application for Cultural Heritage Preservation and Planning for Affordable Housing. Land 2022, 11, 1197.
Foster, G. Circular Economy Strategies for Adaptive Reuse of Cultural Heritage Buildings to Reduce Environmental Impacts. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 152, 104507.
Pinder, J.; Austin, S.; Schmidt, R.; Gibb, A. Form, Function and the Economics of Change. In Facilities Change Management; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011; pp. 26–41.
Mu, J.; Wang, T.; Zhang, Z. Research on the Acoustic Environment of Heritage Buildings: A Systematic Review. Buildings 2022, 12, 1963.
Conejos, S.; Langston, C.; Chan, E.H.W.; Chew, M.Y.L. Governance of Heritage Buildings: Australian Regulatory Barriers to Adaptive Reuse. Build. Res. Inf. 2016, 44, 507–519.
Pereira Roders, A.; Hudson, J. Change Management and Cultural Heritage. In Facilities Change Management; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011; pp. 175–189.
Hull, J.; Ewart, I.J. Conservation Data Parameters for BIM-Enabled Heritage Asset Management. Autom. Constr. 2020, 119, 103333.
Yung, E.H.K.; Chan, E.H.W. Evaluation for the Conservation of Historic Buildings. Facilities 2013, 31, 542–564.
Wang, G.; Liu, S. Adaptability Evaluation of Historic Buildings as an Approach to Propose Adaptive Reuse Strategies Based on Complex Adaptive System Theory. J. Cult. Herit. 2021, 52, 134–145.
Pintossi, N.; Ikiz Kaya, D.; Pereira Roders, A. Assessing Cultural Heritage Adaptive Reuse Practices: Multi-Scale Challenges and Solutions in Rijeka. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3603.
Cruz, A.; Coffey, V.; Chan, H.T.; Perovic, M. Model for the Maintenance-Focussed Heritage Building Conservation. J. Cult. Herit. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2022, 12, 309–320.
Rafidee, H.; Hasbollah, B.; Kelantan, M. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues A Conceptual Framework for Conserving Heritage Buildings in Malaysia from the Perspective of Facilities Management. Int. J. Econ. Financ. Issues 2015, 5, 10–11.
Dann, N.; Cantell, T. Maintenance in Conservation. In Understanding Historic Building Conservation; Blackwell Publishing Ltd.: Oxford, UK, 2008; pp. 185–198.
Duffy, F. Measuring Building Performance. Facilities 1990, 8, 17–20.
Finch, E. Change Readiness. In Facilities Change Management; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011; pp. 17–25.
Shiem-Shin, D.T.; Teng Hee, T. Facilities Management and the Business of Managing Assets; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2004.
Jamal, M.T.; Alalyani, W.R.; Thoudam, P.; Anwar, I.; Bino, E. Telecommuting during COVID 19: A Moderated-Mediation Approach Linking Job Resources to Job Satisfaction. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11449.
Vidovszky, I. Impact-Based Diagnostic Approach for Maintenance Monitoring of Historic Buildings. Procedia Eng. 2016, 164, 575–582.
Shipley, R.; Utz, S.; Parsons, M. Does Adaptive Reuse Pay? A Study of the Business of Building Renovation in Ontario, Canada. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 2006, 12, 505–520.
Barnes, R.L. Competencies, Credentials, Education, and Training. In International Facility Management; John Wiley & Sons: Oxford, UK, 2013; pp. 5–38.
Wai-Chung Lai, L.; Chi-Wing Ho, D. Facilities Management and Planning for Heritage Sites: Lessons Learnt from a Pilot Study on Disused Military Sites. Facilities 2003, 21, 80–89.
Francis, T.J.; Geens, A.J.; Littlewood, J. Association of Researchers in Construction Management; 2010. Available online: https://www.arcom.ac.uk/ (accessed on 3 August 2023).
Dann, N.; Hills, S.; Worthing, D. Assessing How Organizations Approach the Maintenance Management of Listed Buildings. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2006, 24, 97–104.
Cruz, A. Developing a Model for Maintenance-Focused Heritage Building Conservation; Queensland University of Technology: Brisbane, Australia, 2020.
Yazdani Mehr, S.; Wilkinson, S. Technical Issues and Energy Efficient Adaptive Reuse of Heritage Listed City Halls in Queensland Australia. Int. J. Build. Pathol. Adapt. 2018, 36, 529–542.

© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.

Upload a video for this entry

Information

Subjects: Regional & Urban Planning

Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :

Billy Edward Hunt

Mohammad Mayouf

Ilnaz Ashayeri

E. M. A. C. Ekanayake

Anastasia Nikologianni

View Times: 108

Update Date: 19 Jan 2024

Table of Contents

Video Upload Options

Confirm