the nature of their built form or the condition that they are in. For example, one cannot make the most out of a highly compartmentalized, single use building such as a prison. Mid 1900s low-rise apartments that have low floor area ratios (FAR) and which may be in some of the cities' prime locations cannot be considered profitable for adaptive reuse. In such scenarios, it would be more profitable for the developers to demolish and replace the existing building with a high-rise that has more space to sell. Often, when building owners cannot find an obvious use for a building, it is left to degenerate and decay and eventually collapse. This may pose as a threat to the safety of the neighborhood. Decaying buildings may even be subject to vandalism and become spaces for anti-social activities and may have a negative impact on the value of the properties in their vicinity. Bullen and Love's survey respondents thought that "the benefits of reusing their existing facility could include avoiding the disruption of relocation, reducing maintenance and running costs". A reuse project should not compromise on satisfying user needs. The survey respondents suggested that a cost vs benefits analysis is essential to determine the return on investment of an adaptive reuse project. The most important governing factors of adaptive reuse decision making with respect to asset condition were observed to be the building's structural integrity, its residual service life, its spatial layout, its location and the ease of retrofitting or installing new building components to the existing built form. According to Bullen and Love, the buildings of the 1960s and 1970s in Perth were badly constructed, used ineffective thermal insulation materials and details and have low suitability for adaptive reuse. On the other hand, the built form of the 1980s was deemed to be engineered to specifications and could accommodate an adaptive reuse model. The survey respondents expressed several concerns and risks that could arise during and after the adaptive reuse of a building which included finding tenants, the threat of building not meeting the demand of the end users, lack of structural stability and structure and material decay during the reconstruction phase of the project. Regulations In Bullen and Love's survey, many respondents thought that there was not enough support and incentives from the government for carrying out adaptive reuse of built assets. They felt that there is limited flexibility in