Liscombe House Project Case Study

Master of Business Administration in Community Economic Development
Cape Breton University

Historic Preservation in the Cape Breton Regional Municipality: Measuring Return on Investment from the Liscombe House Project

Brittany Erickson
September 10, 2013

An Applied Research Project (ARP) submitted as a requirement of the Master of Business Administration in Community Economic Development at Cape Breton University

Under the Direction of

Dr. Andrew Molloy
Dr. Tom Urbaniak

Abstract The purpose of this study was to explore the research question: “What is the return on investment of the Liscombe House Project?” using a model developed by Lawrence Deane. The Liscombe House, which was built circa 1870 in the North End of Sydney, was purchased by.................. It was subsequently sold to an interested developer in 2012 and has been undergoing renovations. The initial findings, based upon Deane’s model, have indicated that the Liscombe House has had a positive return on investment. The study’s findings were arrived at on the basis of detailed documentation review and analysis and participant observation, in the form of attending local community housing and historic preservation meetings. Nine
semi-structured interviews were held with key informants in order to gain important insight on the Liscombe House project.

Acknowledgements I owe the success of completing this final MBA project to many people; the support I have received has been my fuel. First, I would like to thank my parents for supporting and understanding my undying love for academia and instilling me with a strong sense of community and work ethic at such a young age. To Martin and Skylar – who have never failed to be the comic relief in my life when I needed it most. I am extremely grateful for the guidance, support, and feedback from my advisors;
Dr. Andrew Molloy and Dr. Tom Urbaniak – your passion for housing restoration and preservation in this community has been beyond inspirational over the duration of this research. I thank everyone who agreed to participate in my research, especially those interviewed in the heat of the summer! You have all provided me with invaluable information that has assisted me tremendously with this project. To the members of the Sydney Architectural Conservation Society for letting me pick their brains and sit in on meetings – thank you for the wonderful work you are doing in our community. Finally, I would like to thank Cape Breton University; an institution that I have called home for the past six years, for allowing me to develop my world views and grow as a person both inside and outside of the classroom. The MBA as well as my undergraduate degree have been amazing experiences that I would not trade for the world. I am forever grateful for the relationships made, lessons learned, and sense of community that I felt within the walls of CBU.

Table of Contents
Abstract .............................................................................................................. 2
Dedication .......................................................................................................... 3
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................ 4

Chapter One: Introduction ................................................................................. 8
1.1 Background 1.1.2 Cape Breton 1.1.3 Philadelphia 1.1.4 Michigan 1.1.5 Baltimore 1.1.6 Pittsburgh
1.2 Study Purpose
1.3 The Project
1.4 Conceptual Framework
1.5 Rationale 1.5.1 Personal Motivation 1.5.2 Liscombe House Project Study 1.5.3 Community Economic Development
1.6 Context
1.7 Limitations
1.8 Organization of Document
1.9 Keywords

Chapter Two: Literature Review ........................................................................... 24
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Historic Preservation 2.2.1 The American Historic Preservation Movement 2.2.2 Charleston, South Carolina 2.2.3 The Canadian Historic Preservation Movement 2.2.4 Nova Scotia 2.2.5 Cape Breton
2.3 Return on Investment 2.3.1 Lawrence Deane 2.3.2 Donovan Rypkema
2.4 Conclusion

Chapter Three: Methodology ............................................................................ 37
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Research Design
3.3 Interview Process
3.4 Participants and Data Collection
3.5 Data Processing and Analysis
3.6 Conclusion

Chapter Four: Findings ....................................................................................... 44

4.1 Introduction
4.2 Neighbourhood Safety
4.3 Building Community Assets
4.4 Creating Local Employment
4.5 Stabilizing Property Values and Taxes
4.6 Conclusion

Chapter Five: Recommendations and Conclusion ................................................... 64

5.1 Introduction
5.2 Study Summary
5.3 Summary of Findings
5.4 Recommendations 5.4.1 Demystifying Historic Preservation
5.5 Conclusion

References .............................................................................................................. 74

Appendices ............................................................................................................. 79
Appendix 1 – Photos of Liscombe House Damage
Appendix 2 – Restrictive Covenant
Appendix 3 – Photos of Liscombe House, August 2013
Appendix 4 – Heritage District Map
Appendix 5 – Research Ethics Approval
Appendix 6 – Interview Questions
Appendix 7 – Informed Consent Form
Appendix 8 – CBRM Crime Statistics
Appendix 9 – SACS Financial Statement

Chapter One: Introduction
1.1 Background The Cape Breton Regional Municipality (CBRM) is an area of 2,433.35 square kilometers with a population on 97,398 (Census, 2011). Since the early 1900s, the area thrived with steel and coal production; reaping the economic benefits of the industrial revolution, though over the past two decades the local people have seen the impact that the closure of these plants have had on the community. Locals have become all too familiar with the issues that arise from being a post industrial community. One of these issues is the massive amount of outmigration from the area; over the past decade the CBRM is losing approximately 1000 people per year. According to Statistics Canada, between 2006 and 2011 the municipality lost 4,885 people; 4.7 percent of the population (Census, 2011). On a large scale, the community has become a service economy, with a current unemployment rate of 17.5% (CBC, 2013) forcing many locals to leave the island for work; a large amount headed out west to the bustling Oil Sands of Alberta. Some residents leave permanently, while others travel back and forth for work; both making it very hard for families in the community. The strain on the economy also largely affects those who remain in the area, with a great deal struggling to make ends meet. The combination of poverty, outmigration, urban sprawl and aging populations is a recipe for disaster when it comes to housing in the CBRM.
“The combination of a rapidly declining and aging population, a relatively old housing stock with a higher share of homes requiring major repairs, and relatively low average household income in the region conspire to result over time in the likelihood of a relatively large number of dilapidated residential properties in the region. If unaddressed, this situation impacts property values, the overall attractiveness of communities, and also invites vandalism and criminal activity.”
(CBRM Integrated Community Sustainability Paper, 2009) As noted in.......................... and reiterated by Mayor Cecil Clarke in the fall of 2012; there are over 700 abandoned or vacant homes to date in the CBRM (Cape Breton Post, 2012). As explored in the research below, this is a common characteristic of post-industrial communities, with many fearing for the future of housing if something doesn’t change. When these homes are boarded up or left vacant there is a higher risk for crime such as vandalism and arson. Property values can also be negatively affected as noted in the above quote. These buildings are also costing the municipality money. The CBRM is not only unable to collect tax dollars from abandoned buildings, they are also having to pay to demolish them when the time comes (......................). On a societal level it is important to offer safe housing to all members of the community, though this can also be seen as an economic opportunity. The examples below show that it is in local decision maker’s best interest to look towards vacant housing renovations. The following paragraphs will explore examples of post-industrial area; including the CBRM and others across North America that have begun to develop mechanisms that can identify and rehabilitate derelict properties within their own communities.
1.1.2 Cape Breton As noted above, .............................was established ........................by a group of local stakeholders. They came together with a common problem; they saw the amount of vacant properties in the CBRM and the societal issue this caused within the community, and they also saw the lack of affordable housing and housing security in the area. The mandate of AHRP is to act as the vehicle to address these problems and discuss remediation of some of these properties; returning them back into the housing stock (........................). The CBRM is home to several other housing initiatives including .......................................with a mandate to provide affordable and safe housing to the community. ...........................focuses on renovating buildings that have historic significance in the community. These organizations, like AHRP are addressing the issue of vacant housing in the community.
1.1.3 Philadelphia The research done in Philadelphia in 2010, states that the vacant land has had a devastating impact on the city’s neighbourhoods and finances. Consultants were hired to look at 40,000 vacant land parcels in the area and came to the conclusion that the city was paying over $20 million a year for maintenance of these properties, as well as losing $2 million per year in uncollected taxes. The buildings also affected others in the area, with $3.6 billion in lost wealth to households due to reduced property values. Compared to the CBRM this is a very extreme example, though shows the intensity of the issue and the potential damage these vacant properties can do. (Econsult Corporation, 2010)
1.1.4 Michigan The Michigan Vacant Property Campaign looks at turning “eyesores to opportunity” and working to meet the needs of leaders who are committed to turning vacant properties into assets. The group collaborates between four organizations and the goal is to connect stakeholders with a common interest between sectors (Michigan, 2013).
1.1.5 Baltimore The research done in Baltimore concludes that the Mayor and larger community are looking at the vacant building stock as an opportunity, rather than a problem. They note that cleaning up the area can help raise property values, increase local taxes, and attract new business to Baltimore. The new program is called “Vacant to Value” or “V2V” and sets out to reduce barriers through the process with a goal of selling the properties when the time comes (Baltimore, 2013).
1.1.6 Pittsburgh Pittsburgh TODAY wrote a local series titled “Nobody’s Home” in 2011, addressing the issue of vacancy in the area. The area has a shifting, aging and declining population, a weak housing market, poor housing stock and rising crime level; quite similar to areas in the CBRM. The development department in Pittsburgh is choosing to look on the bright side, noting that vacant properties allow a neighbourhood to redesign itself in ways that are better suited to their down sized populations. In the past several years, the Allegheny County Vacant Property Recovery Program has been able to sell 500 tax-delinquent properties to buyers; some interested in buildings, while other purchasing land to add to a yard or park (Pittsburgh, 2013). The above section explores the growing issue of vacant housing, noting that there are many similarities amongst post-industrial communities in North America. Many of these communities are working towards creating opportunities from these eye sores. With this being said, this research study adds another dimension to the issue of vacant housing – historic preservation. Because these industries were bustling with industry in the past, they have a rich history and story to tell, along with beautiful aesthetics and architecture that has withstood the test of time. As noted by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, historic preservation is defined as:
“The process of identifying, protecting, and enhancing buildings, places and objects of historical and cultural significance.” (National Trust, 2013) As depicted in the literature in the chapter to follow, there has been a growing historical preservation movement in the United States with many people realizing the social and financial benefits of saving these spaces – a movement that Canada, a much younger country, is slowly adopting. Because of the steel and coal industry of the past, the CBRM is full of historically significant buildings; one of which the topic of this research: the Liscombe House.
1.2 Study Purpose The purpose of this research was to use the return on investment model, as established by Lawrence Deane in Winnipeg, to measure the socio-economic benefits that have come from the Liscombe House Project in the North End of Sydney. This research study received funding from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) between May 2012 and May 2013 in the form of a Joseph Bombardier Masters Scholarship. Why does the return on investment of the Liscombe House matter? When faced with this question, many answers come to mind. To begin, the Cape Breton Regional Municipality is full of beautiful and historic properties that need saving, something the area is quite popular and researched for, though this type of analysis has not been addressed as of yet in the community. The historic value is present, the buildings are there, there is a vacant housing issue in the community, and .............................................has shown that historic preservation; in the form of the Liscombe House Preservation Project can address these issues. They created a revolving fund, purchased, renovated and sold the house to a developer that is turning into two quality apartments – though currently there is no way to measure the benefit that this type of project has on our community. I believe that by gathering the data, talking to those involved, and taking a holistic approach of looking at the project I have been able to show that the Liscombe House has created a far reaching return on investment for the community, a piece of information that will be beneficial to a wide range of individuals.

1.3 The Project The Liscombe House, located at 84 Charlotte Street in the North End of Sydney, Nova Scotia was built circa 1870 by local Blacksmith Edward Liscombe. Here, Liscombe lived with his wife Margaret and their eight Children (Liscombe Family Fonds, 1860-1940). Three generations of Liscombes lived in the home, along with many other owners, as well as housing the local Children’s Aid Society between the 1970s and 1990s (Cape Breton Post, 2011). One of the main objectives of ......................established in ......................is to conserve historic sites in the community. For that reason, the organization was interested in the home since 1971 though it was not available for purchase. The Liscombe House is one of the only Italianate buildings in the CBRM; a classical architecture style distinct of the nineteenth century known for a boxy style, gabled roof, and bay windows (Wisconsin Historical Society, 2013). By 2011 the current owner of the Liscombe House had left it vacant for nearly seven years which was causing extensive damage to the interior. The owner; ..........................................had purchased the home ...................... unaware of the level of deterioration. ................was not interested in selling though after the group sent her pictures of the extensive water, mould and other damage (see Appendix 1) she agreed to put it on the market (.........................). Extensive research on historic preservation best practices had been done between the .....................and Cape Breton University, and now it was time to pilot the model. It was determined that to purchase the building, a mortgage or loan was necessary in order to access funds for immediate renovations.. At this point a group was formed to discuss the acquisition of historic buildings and the need for revitalization, and was now able to borrow money for these projects (.........................). The mandate of ...................to step in when there is a potential threat to buildings or landmarks within the community. The model that .....................uses has been partially inspired by the preservation movement in Charleston, South Carolina, which uses a revolving fund to keep proceeds from preservation projects within the community, as well as protecting these properties with restrictive covenants. They were given......................................... In order for....................... to secure a loan they used funds from a private donor as well as the CBRM Heritage Association. In 2011 they purchased the home for .....................and had to immediately determine what was an initial threat, as well as what renovation work would provide the best return on the investment to the revolving fund. (...............................) Members of................... and volunteers held several work parties to clean up the outside of the house, including mowing the lawn and disposing of trash and people were hired to carry out larger renovation projects such as mould removal and putting a new roof on the house. At this stage the group believed that they had dealt with the immediate threats of the house and felt it was ready for sale.
As .......................recalls:
“We wanted to end it somewhere – we didn’t want what we did to determine the end use because we wanted to leave it as open as possible ... Anyone who bought it we wanted to leave it so that buyer could do whatever they wanted with it under the covenant.” (.........................) There was a call for proposals, two of which were considered by................., and in the end was sold to.................... As noted above this sale came with a restrictive covenant (See Appendix 2) that protected the exterior of the house. This covenant included that the home could not be demolished, the window placement could not be changed, and the footprint of the home had to stay the same. .................................................purchased the house because of his interest in history and architecture, as well as enjoying doing projects that benefit the community – reasons that are true to the mandate of........................... had also developed Market House on Charlotte Street several years before, and just recently has purchased the building next door to Liscombe House that was damaged in a fire in 2013. Since the purchase there has been a substantial amount of work done on the house. It had basically been rebuilt from the bones because of extensive structural damage. It was re shingled, and rough lumber was purchased to match the original boards. The placement of the windows stayed the same as well as the foundation and dormers. ............................also tried to keep as much as the original interior as possible – including the original stair case and fire places (See Appendix 3). Where he could not save original pieces, he tried to stay with the original style of the home, while still transforming the home into two high end, modern, three bedroom apartments (...................................). This was the .............................meaning there was a lot of new ground to tread. Every step had to be researched for best practices, with experts brought in when necessary, and though it was not clear cut– it worked. The group was able to renovate and sell the home, and after paying their bills were able to put the profits back into the revolving fund for the next project. They knew it would not be an easy task, though were so inspired by the building they couldn’t bear to see it destroyed. The following passages express these feelings:
“”There was something indescribable about that house – you would walk in and just despite all of the horrible mould everywhere and you know all the renos they had done for the Children’s Aid, you’d walk in and be like ”This has got to be saved!” There’s something so incredible about this place ... And then it’s right there on Charlotte Street ... you have all these heritage assets around you and you knew that this one was a part of all of those stories so it had to be saved for that reason.”” (......................................)
“It was such a beautiful house when I saw it. It was such a beautiful place that it just seems like such a shame to let it go.” (...........................)
1.4 Conceptual Framework Lawrence Deane; community economic development academic and housing expert developed a return on investment model while involved with the revitalization of a housing cluster in the North End of Winnipeg. In his subsequent “Under One Roof” cases study he measures the effects of housing revitalization through indicators such as neighbourhood safety, building community assets, local job creating and stabilizing property values and taxes (Deane, 2006). Donovan Rypkema; a leader in the field of economic development consulting and historic preservation advocate, addresses many of these same indicators while arguing the economic benefits of historic preservation movements in the United States (Rypkema, 2005).
1.5 Rationale
1.5.1 Personal Motivation I have always marvelled over old buildings and have loved hearing about my community’s history, especially from my grandmother; a long-time member of the Whitney Pier Historic Society and avid storyteller, though just recently have I questioned the larger picture for historic preservation. I have realized that historic preservation is not just about remembering our past but can allow us to move into the future as a strong and vibrant community. I was drawn to this topic for my Applied Research Project for several reasons. As noted above, I enjoy the beauty and storytelling that comes along with historic buildings, though I also have a very strong passion for the betterment of the community where I live. As a volunteer for Habitat for Humanity I was interested in the general topic of housing. My primary and secondary advisors; Dr. Andrew Molloy and Dr. Tom Urbaniak had both taught me in my undergraduate Political Science degree and I was aware and interested in the work that they were both doing on housing in the CBRM. To me, it was very clear that housing went hand in hand with community economic development and through several conversations my research topic was born. Community development is very important to me and through this project I was able to look at the social benefits of the project, though also look at the business side, measuring the economic impact of historical preservation and how this type of project could be used to generate and retain wealth in the community.
1.5.2 Liscombe House The strength of this research lies in the fact that there is a gap in the community right now. As noted above, vacant housing is a problem in the CBRM, and a project like the Liscombe House is a potential solution though currently there is no way to determine that. As discussed in the introduction and literature review, policies and studies have been created elsewhere, making it possible to measure the value of renovation and preservation projects. Academics like Lawrence Deane and Donovan Rypkema have also measures return on investment and using their work as a guide provides the tools that are necessary to measure the Liscombe House Project. The findings from this research will be valuable to those on many different levels; preservationists, community groups, local government and decision makers, as well as housing policy makers. Historic preservation is often seen as the work done by special interest groups, though this paper discusses the benefits it has on the larger community.
1.5.3 Community Economic Development As noted above, and reiterated by Hanley and Serge in their chapter titled “Putting Housing on the CED Agenda” – there is an interconnection between housing and community economic development, exemplified by the following:
“Good housing not only provides a springboard from which community members are better able to pursue their interests but the housing itself provides opportunities for employment, training and other forms of social and economic activities.” (Hanley and Serge, 2006)
“Housing also offers many social benefits to communities. Improved housing can improve security in a neighbourhood; not only do people feel safer when a neighbourhood is kept up, but they are also more likely to take action if something appears to threaten the security or wellbeing of their place of belonging.” (Hanley and Serge, 2006)
1.6 Context The purchase, renovation and sale of the Liscombe House.............................. The home sold to the developer in 2012, is still under construction, with hopes to be complete by the end of September 2013. Because of these factors it is important to note that the research in this paper is measuring the project as is, and unlike Deane’s work in Winnipeg, will not be able to measure the return on investment of end use. Conversations with the developer and other stakeholders, as well as past research trends lead to speculation regarding the future of the property and community benefit. The full community benefits of the Liscombe House Project are not yet known, though the work done thus far has provided plenty of data to measure return on investment.

1.7 Limitations As noted above, because of the stage of the Liscombe House renovation, unfortunately I am not able to measure the project as fully as Lawrence Deane was able to do in Winnipeg. With this being said, I have been privy to future use plans through conversations with the developer, and what these plans mean for the community. The Liscombe House is one property, as compared to Deane’s cluster of homes in Winnipeg. Because my research is measuring the return on investment of a single home rather than a neighbourhood, the evaluation of the model had to be slightly modified. For example, it is much easier to measure the affect a housing cluster has on property values than one property that is still under construction. I still was able to use Deane’s indicators when measuring return on investment for the home though focused heavier on aspects that were more relevant to the project such as local job creation and creating community assets. Though quantity of interviews could be seen as a limitation, every effort was taken to gather the best data for this project. Participants were chosen through purposeful selection; a term that will be discussed fully within the methodology of this research study. Because of time constrictions, and the manageability of this project I was not able to interview........................, nor all of the members or volunteers of the project. I did however attend......................., as well as read meeting minutes and other relevant material that came from the group which was able to supplement the interviews. The ......................who were interviewed were chosen out of..................... One ..............................to the Liscombe House on Charlotte Street. This was done as a way to measure how different parts of the North End were affected by the Liscombe House. Interviews with....................and....................... also discussed the conversations they had with......................, addressing the issues and concerns they voiced throughout the stages of the project. This information added another layer to that gathered by my interviews with........................

1.8 Organization of the Document The following chapters include the literature review, methodology, findings as well as recommendations and conclusion. Chapter Two: Literature Review will explore the American and Canadian historic preservation movement, with examples, as well as the return on investment model, as used by Lawrence Deane and reiterated by Donovan Rypkema in historic preservation examples. Chapter Three: Methodology looks at the methods and design used to conduct and analyze the data. This includes both the quantitative and qualitative methods used. Chapter Four: Findings addresses how the data was used to measure return on investment for the Liscombe House Project using the Lawrence Deane Model. Finally Chapter Five: Recommendations and Conclusion will discuss a summary of the project, make recommendations based on the literature and findings, as well as conclude the paper.

Keywords
Historic Preservation, Return on Investment, Liscombe House, Cape Breton Regional Municipality

Chapter Two: Literature Review
2.1 Introduction The literature researched for this project can be broken down into two categories: historic preservation and return on investment. The first of these; historic preservation, was explored to gain insight on the historic preservation movement itself, both in the United States and Canada and the policy that has been created. In this section, the work of Norman Tyler; an expert in the American Historic preservation field establishes that the historic preservation movement has boomed in recent decades. The example of Charleston, South Carolina where the Liscombe House revolving fund was modeled is explored. Canadian historic preservation is also discussed looking at the federal, provincial and local organizations that support the movement, though noting that it is nowhere near as widespread as in America – which will be further addressed in recommendations. The second category explores the concept of return on investment, first by looking at the research done by Lawrence Deane in the North End of Winnipeg. Here Deane was able to measure return on investment of the project with indicators – a method that has been used in this research study. The results of Deane’s research will be further discussed here. This section also includes work done by historic preservation author and advocate Donovan Rypkema, to show that these indicators can apply to historic preservation. Rypkema notes that there is often a language barrier between preservationists and local decision makers and the language of economics is often able to bridge that gap. His research looks at many areas that have carried out successful preservation projects, and several will be introduced. The first body of literature places a heavier focus on understanding the history of preservation, societal expectations to preserve it, and the policy surrounding it. The second body of work looks at the result of renovation or preservation projects, again looking at societal obligation though also why it makes economic sense for communities to preserve and repurpose historic buildings.
2.2 Historic Preservation As noted by Paul Philippot, historic preservation expresses a modern way of maintaining living contact with the cultural works of the past. Before the Industrial Revolution, there was no need to preserve, and there was as traditional link to the past, though with technological advancements and progress, there began a deterioration of that history, thus a desire to save that past was born. (Philippot, 1976)
2.2.1 The American Historic Preservation Movement
“Therefore when we build, let us think that we build forever. Let it not be for present delight, nor for present use alone...” - John Ruskin (Tyler, 2009) Norman Tyler; author in the field notes that historic preservation has played a large and increasing role in American society in recent decades and has become a movement of millions looking to protect their past (Tyler,2009). He notes that preservation activities took place in earlier years – the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, though were not recognized as such at the time. During this time the government played no real role in the movement, focusing the majority of time and money on national parks. The National Park Service was established in 1916 to protect natural sites though over the years has expanded to cover many federal historic preservation programs (Tyler, 2009). Williamsburg Virginia, first settled in 1633 played a large role in early American preservation. After the war of independence the area struggled, though in 1923 a restoration project took place which paved the way for important guidelines and standards fur current preservation policy (Tyler, 2009). For many years, historic preservation moved forward into two directions; private and public sector, though in 1949 they came together to form the National Trust for Historic Preservation. This organization was created to link efforts by National Park Services and the private sector that were revitalizing areas. The National Trust has four objectives that have shaped the American preservation movement:
1.) Identify and act on important preservation issues
2.) Support, broaden, and strengthen organized preservation efforts
3.) Target communications to those who affect the future of historic resources
4.) Expand private and public financial resources for preservation activities In 1966 the National Trust for Historic Preservation published a book entitled “With Heritage So Rich” which displayed many significant structures that had been lost. With this book, came a report that recommended federal government played a larger role in the historic preservation movement. This event was a big moment that put historic preservation in the forefront and in 1966 Congress passed the National Historic Preservation Act. This act established a national registry of historic places and an advisory council. From this act the preservation movement was able to grow into the millions of supporters and advocates that are seen today (Tyler, 2009).
2.2.2 Charleston, South Carolina Charleston exemplifies the early preservation activity as noted by Tyler in the previous section. It was also an important source for best practice for the Sydney Architectural Conservation Society when purchasing and restoring the Liscombe House. The literature on Charleston, South Carolina, both by Sidney Bland and Robert R. Weyeneth emphasize the importance that the historic preservation movement had in the state at a time where the future was dim. Through the body of work it is made clear that these projects revitalized communities, breathing life back into the streets, while keeping the architectural integrity of the past. Charleston has become famous for the historic preservation initiatives that have taken place within the last century. In the 1920s many citizens of Charleston were worried about losing the history of their community, and in the 1930a the Historic Charleston Foundation (HCF) was established. It began as a committee of local citizens with a mission to promote and preserve the history of the area, knowing that municipal planning was a key component in moving forward (Weyeneth, 2000). In 1955, the HCF purchased its first property for office space, and from there began to preserve the Ansonborough area; a neighbourhood that had struggled economically and was quickly deteriorating. This endeavour was going to be extremely costly, which led to the idea of a revolving fund. This type of fund would use a small amount of capital; fundraised or gifted, to purchase the first property, with the remaining profit returning to the fund for future projects. This ensured that the profits stayed in the community and that there was a way to fund the next project. The HCF was also able to keep properties safe by establishing a restrictive covenant; an agreement ensuring the new owner would maintain the historic integrity to the exterior of the building. This project was seen as successful and by the 1970s the HCF used the revolving fund to purchase over 60 buildings in Ansonborough and restore over 100 other properties (Weyeneth, 2000). ............................adopted both the revolving fund and restrictive covenant while carrying out the Liscombe House Project. This made it possible to store funds for the next project, as well as ensure the home would keep its historic significance.
2.2.3 The Canadian Historic Preservation Movement The previous section explored the growing historic preservation movement in the United States, which leads to the movement closer to home. Canada is a much younger country with younger buildings, weaker preservation policy and a culture that is not as exposed to the topic, though there have been some advances in recent years. This section discusses Canadian historic preservation at the national, provincial and municipal level. The largest player in the Canadian movement is the Heritage Canada Foundation; a national non profit organization and registered charity, established in 1973 as the National Trust for Canada. It is the only national organization working to protect Canada’s historic places and is attributed to inspiring general policy and laws, providing tools, building partnerships, and helping Canadians protect places that matter to them. There is an annual National Heritage Conference with participants including architects, municipal planners, developers, public policy makers and property owners (Heritage Canada Foundation, 2013). The foundation has been able to encourage all levels of government to adopt programs and policies, though are motivated to do much more to ensure the protection of these spaces.
One initiative that the HCF is hoping to get passed by government is the “Heritage First” policy which helps increase market demand for older buildings by giving preference to heritage building when leasing spaces for conferences, offices or accommodations. The United States is a leader in adopting this policy and has yielded great results. Currently no level of Canadian government has signed on to the program, and according to the HCF often current policies make it impossible for heritage properties to meet leasing standards (Heritage Canada Foundation,
2013).
2.2.4 Nova Scotia Much like the historic preservation movement in the United States, the interest in preservation began at the local level in many areas of Canada. Before the Canadian Heritage Trust was established, there were provincial groups that had organized to address the issues; one being the Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia. Established in 1959 in response to the demolition of a popular historic home in Halifax, the group came together to discuss the protection of Nova Scotia’s built Heritage. The organization promotes the need for provincial preservation legislation and through research reports have been able to designate over one hundred buildings in Nova Scotia as heritage properties (Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia, 2013). The Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia has an education committee that sets out to further education on the topic, as well as presenting a “Built Heritage Award” to a restoration project annually during Heritage Week (Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia, 2013). The Trust is staffed by volunteers and is made up of members committed to the movement. The Trust follows the guidelines of the Nova Scotia Heritage Property Act, established in 1991 and created to identify, preserve and protect heritage properties. The Act provides legislation on designating Heritage Conservation Districts, including the one in the following section (Nova Scotia Heritage Property Act, 1991).

2.2.5 Cape Breton In 2008, an area in the North End of Sydney, CBRM, became the first Heritage Conservation District in Cape Breton. This event was sparked from a growing concern amongst the local community and the Old Sydney Society regarding the direction the North End was moving development wise. The CBRM Mayor and Council were approached and agreed that the area must be protected. A Heritage Advisory Committee was organized and worked with the CBRM Mayor and Council to establish a section of the North End (See Appendix 4) as a Heritage Conservation District under the Nova Scotia Heritage Property Act (Heritage Conservation District Plan, 2008). The goal of the district is to promote development that is compatible with the history of the area and promote renovations to buildings that can enhance their heritage value. The provisions of the district include protecting existing buildings as well as meeting standards for future development. Another intent of the district is to discourage unnecessary demolition of older buildings in the area (Heritage Conservation District Plan, 2008). As a Heritage Conservation District, the North End is able to apply to the province for financial incentives to restore heritage buildings. This is an incentive that SACS was able to apply for when renovating the Liscombe House (Heritage Conservation District Plan, 2008). The above shows that the United States as well as Canada began many of their movements locally, from the ground up. It also shows that strong policy is key for a historic preservation movement. The United States has more momentum with stronger support from government, though the Canadian movement is growing. Much work needs to be done to gain government recognition and support and success stories like that of the Liscombe House can be used to build momentum and make a case for the return on investment for historic preservation.
2.3 Return on Investment
2.3.1 Lawrence Deane
“Decline typically begins in the oldest residential districts of cities. As central city housing begins to age and wear out, those residents who have economic options move to newer housing at the city’s suburban edge, leaving the older housing to residents of lesser economic means.” (Deane, 2005) The model used for this project comes from Deane’s work in the North End of Winnipeg. The above quote from “Under One Roof” resonates very strongly with not only what has happened in the North End of Winnipeg, but the North End of Sydney and other parts of the CBRM closely linked to the closure of the coal mines and steel plant. In “Under One Roof: Community Economic Development and Housing in the Inner City” Lawrence Deane studies the North End Housing Project (NEHP); a non-profit organization looking to address the issue of housing and poverty in the inner city of Winnipeg. As noted above, there are numerous similarities between the North End of Winnipeg and Sydney, including a down town core that has been neglected as a result of urban sprawl. Deane notes that in many instances it only takes one or two properties to lower property values and often deterioration is a chain reaction (Deane, 2006). Throughout his study, Deane looks to quantify the benefits of neighbourhood housing revitalization through “returns on investment.” Return on investment can be measured by using a number of indicators, including stabilizing property values and taxes, creating local employment, neighbourhood safety, and building community assets. For example, when evaluating job creation, Deane looks at the cost benefit analysis of employment created from the NEHP, noting that up to fifty percent of the public funds used for the project are returned to the public when an individual who was previously unemployed is hired. Providing these individuals with employment allows them to stabilize their life and contribute to society (Deane, 2006). “Under One Roof” is a case study on an affordable housing cluster, though the indicators are able to measure return on investment for any type of housing project, including this study on the historic preservation of the Liscombe House.
2.3.2 Donovan Rypkema
“The economic benefits of historic preservation are enormous. The knowledge of the economic benefits of historic preservation are miniscule.” – Greg Paxton (Rypkema, 2005) Donovan Rypkema, a leader in the field of economic development consulting and historic preservation advocate, discusses many examples of successful historic preservation projects in “The Economics of Historic Preservation.” Like Norman Tyler, Rypkema explores the societal obligation of historic preservation though his focus is on creating a body of work that will get the attention of local policy makers in a language they will understand – economics. Throughout the text, Rypkema presents one hundred arguments that support the economics of historic preservation ranging from creating local employment to environmental sustainability. He also offers information on work that is being done in many American states, several examples are further explored below (Rypkema, 2005)
Georgia
“The Committee also learned that issues facing Georgia, such as rural economic development and state wide growth strategy that uses natural, recreational and historic resources wisely, can be addressed through historic preservation.” – Report of the Joint Study Committee: Economic Development through Historic Preservation (Rypkema, 2005) Decision makers in Georgia have recognized that historic preservation can be the answer to many questions by creating jobs, bringing in tourism dollars and creating assets for homes and local business. Because of this, they promote tax incentives; offering a twenty percent tax credit to certified historic rehabilitation projects. In five years, more than $85 million in private investment was generated in 228 heritage properties (Government Finance Review, 2000). There are many economic benefits associated with the historic preservation movement in Georgia. Between the year 1992-1996 there were 7,550 construction jobs created. There was $201 million in earnings including wages and profit for local business and $559 in total economic activity. It is also noted that these projects increased neighbourhood property values and generated more tourism dollars (Government Finance Review, 2000).

Massachusetts
“Urban programs directed to preserve traditional neighbourhood housing stock help create a supply of affordable housing, maintain homes for long time residents, and stabilize property values and city tax rates ... “ – Save Our City: A Case for Boston (Rypkema, 2005) In 2002, Massachusetts carried out the Economic Impacts of Historic Preservation Study to measure the affect on the area. This was a statewide initiative that took place in several other areas, using the same measurement framework, coined PEIM; the Preservation Economic Impact Model. PEIM involved many areas including employment and taxes (Massachusetts, 2002). In 2000, an estimated $2.29 billion was spent on historic properties in Massachusetts and have yielded many benefits for the state. For example, 67, 233 new jobs were created in the construction and service sector. The investment has also been beneficial to the tourism industry, with 4.3 million heritage trips being made in Massachusetts between 1998 and 2000.
“In sum, historic preservation in Massachusetts is not just important culturally and aesthetically, it also fosters significant economic activity and benefits in its own right.” (Massachusetts, 2002) This second section of the literature review provides the model and language for return on investment in the housing sector. Deane provides a framework for measuring return on investment for housing projects while Rypkema’s research focuses on the return on investment, or in his words, economic benefit of historic preservation projects.
2.4 Conclusion Holistically, the literature clarified that there is a need for strong housing policy, especially in terms of historic preservation. Certain parts of the United States, as depicted above, are quite progressive when it comes to historic preservation policy when compared to Canada, though the movement is growing here as well. This issue will be further discussed in the recommendation section of this paper. Deane and Rypkema show that there are studies that are measuring return on investment, something that must be further explored locally in order for the historic preservation movement to receive a wider response from policy makers, and the larger community.

Chapter Three: Methodology
3.1 Introduction A case study was done on the Liscombe House Project in the North End of Sydney to learn about the local historic preservation movement, as well as to apply Lawrence Deane’s return on investment model to the property. It was decided that in order to effectively carry out this case study, several types of research would be necessary. Overall this was an applied research project (focusing on the Liscombe House Preservation Project) that used both social and business methodology. Social research was important in developing semi structured interviews to see how neighbours and other stakeholders interacted with the project and within the North End Community, while business and evaluative research provided the tools necessary to measure the socio-economic benefit of the project. (Understanding Research, 2013) This case study utilized both qualitative and quantitative methodology in order to gain extensive knowledge on the project. The qualitative methodology included participant observation; through attendance of ......................................as well as .........................committee meetings. Nine semi-structured interviews were conducted with stakeholders to gain first-hand knowledge on said organizations, as well as to gain insight on the Liscombe House Project. Quantitative data was drawn from document review and analysis, the application of the return on investment model and the data analysis of the research gathered on the North End Sydney neighbourhood, where the Liscombe House is located. This analysis also involves a crime statistic data set from the Cape Breton Regional Police, as well as ..........................financial statements regarding the Liscombe House Project.
3.2 Research Design The study was designed to meet the Applied Research Project guidelines of the Master of Business Administration. Extensive consultation took place between Brittany Erickson; and her advisors, Dr. Andrew Molloy and Dr. Tom Urbaniak. It was decided that this study would measure the return on investment of historic preservation in the Cape Breton Regional Municipality, focusing on the Liscombe House in the North End of Sydney. Using multiple research methods is common in qualitative research, as noted by Maxwell, to gain information about different aspects of a phenomenon. This technique, as referred to by Greene (2007) is called complementarity and expansion, and in this case was in the form of interviews, as well as participant observation in conversations and SACS board meetings, and touring and taking photos of the Liscombe House (Maxwell, 2013). Interview questions were drafted under the guidance of advisors with a sample questionnaire being sent to the Cape Breton University Research Ethics Board - ethics approval through Cape Breton University was granted for this project (See Appendix 5). Document review and analysis took place in 2012 and 2013 and data collection in the form of interviews took place in the summer of 2013. The study was created to measure return on investment, by gaining insight on the different stages of the project. Because this was a first project for the Sydney Architectural Conservation Society, field work was a very important component in gaining firsthand knowledge that was not previously publicly accessed.

3.3 Interview Process In the beginning stages of the project, it was clear that key informant interviews were necessary to gain insight on the local historic preservation movement as well as stages and responses from the Liscombe House Project. All interviews (with two exceptions) took place in Sydney, Nova Scotia, between the participant and the principal investigator, either at the site of the Liscombe House, Cape Breton University Campus, or the participant’s home. The two exceptions were ......... They were both given the research questions intended for the interviews and sent email responses, similar to that of a questionnaire, along with scanned copies of the informed consent. It is recognized that there are limitations that come with email interviews. This method removed face to face communication, which in turn diminished the ability to ask probing questions, though both participants were quite thorough with their responses and were available for follow-up if necessary.
3.4 Participants and Data Collection Good research relationships with participants, as noted by Maxwell, are very crucial to good research. The investigator must work with the participant as a partner in order to produce useful material for the study (Maxwell, 2013). In this study, creating strong research relationships and a rapport with participants was taken very seriously. Through the informed consent form, participants were provided with clear information regarding what the study entailed and what was expected of them, noting that they could share what they believed relevant and had total control to end the interview at any time. It was also priority that the participants were interviewed in a space that was comfortable for them, so that they would feel, as Maxwell advises, as partners in the research experience. Participant selection was very important to this case study. Purposeful selection; the intentional selection of research participants, was necessary in order to gain information relevant to the research question and goals of the study. As noted by Maxwell, the goal of purposeful selection is to select a group with which you can establish the most productive relationships with and the participants that will provide the best data for the study (Maxwell, 2013). The information provided in the findings could not have been obtained if not provided by particular individuals. For example, the members of SACS, as well as the developer were the only individuals who could give insight on the steps of the Liscombe House preservation, including construction projects. The participants ranged in involvement therefore the interview questions also ranged amongst participants (See Appendix 6). The interviews were semi-structured, using a list of questions as a guideline, though participants were informed that they had control of what they chose to discuss. Having this freedom allowed for participants to share what they thought was important, as well as removing the pressure of having to respond in a structured manner. This type of interview was therefore the best fit for the research, resulting in participants sharing valuable memories and stories that would not have come up in a more structured forum. Four members of the Sydney Architectural Conservation Society were interviewed, each participating in different levels of involvement and providing different information to the study. Four neighbours to the Liscombe House were also interviewed. One participant was a neighbour and a member of SACS, therefore the interview covered both topics. Neighbours were chosen by demographics – one participant lived very close to the Liscombe House, one was around the corner and two were several streets away. This was done to measure how the project impacted different parts of the neighbourhood. The developer of the Liscombe House; ...........was interviewed through email, though his parents; ........... were recorded and asked some questions about the property during a tour of the property in August. Because the project started two years ago, the members of the ...............were given the questions a day or two in advance in order to give them time to retrieve any information that they felt necessary. Each participant was informed that the interview was semi-structured and they were able to share as much or as little as they wanted on the topic. Each participant was required to sign an informed consent form (see Appendix 7) and were notified that their name would be shared in the research. They could withdraw at any point, or request any statement to go off the record, which would not be transcribed. All interviews were recorded using a digital recorder that was only accessible to the principal investigator. Participants were also given the option to receive a copy of the completed study.

3.5 Data Processing and Analysis As each interview was complete, it was transferred from the digital recorder onto a password protected computer and external hard drive then deleted from the device. At this point the principal investigator listened to each interview, as suggested by Maxwell, before transcribing in order to develop ideas about categories and organization of data (Maxwell, 2013). The interviews were then transcribed verbatim by the principal investigator and stored. At this stage the interviews were analyzed for content. Because of the small amount of interviews conducted, there was no need for an extensive coding system though interviews were divided into three categories: Developer, Neighbour, and ............member or Volunteer. These interviews were then coded into sections as they pertained to the findings. These themes represented general information about the project as well as the Deane’s indicators that would measure return on investment and included:
1.) Community Safety
2.) Building Community Assets
3.) Creating Local Employment
4.) Stabilizing Property Values and Taxes
5.) General Liscombe House Information / Other Having these topics divided at an early stage made it easier to analyse the indicators for the next chapter: Findings.

3.6 Conclusion The Liscombe House case study was carried out to measure return on investment for the community, and the above methodology created the tools to do that. Tackling this project meant choosing the research methods that would allow the Deane model to be applied to the Liscombe House. This involved using several research disciplines (social and business) as well as both quantitative and qualitative methods. This approach allowed for a wide range of data to be collected, all extremely valuable in answering the research question. There were several limitations with the methodology chosen. As noted above, the unexpected email interviews proved to be challenging, though the results were still very valuable to the research. Another challenge, mentioned in earlier pages, was the stage of the project. Lawrence Deane’s model was used when measuring return on investment, though due to the differences between Liscombe House and Winnipeg it was decided that the application of the model would need to be slightly modified. For example, Deane was able to measure the end-use benefits of the project, though because the Liscombe House is not yet complete, discussions with the developer regarding trends were used to analyze this indicator. This will be discussed in full in the following chapter.
Chapter Four: Findings
4.1 Introduction Through participant observation from SACS meetings, as well as the interview process, participants were very honest with me; sharing their thoughts and experiences regarding the Liscombe House Project. This information, along with the data provided by relevant local news articles, Police crime statistics, and SACS financial statements provided the data required to measure the return on investment of the Liscombe House Project, according to Lawrence Deane’s indicators. From this point, the findings will be divided by theme of response, into four categories: Neighbourhood safety, Building Community Assets, Creating Local Employment, and Stabilizing Property Values and Taxes. The following sections will explore the analysis of the data as it pertains to the model.
4.2 Neighbourhood Safety
“It has been long evident that crime levels vary in relation to neighbourhood social conditions such as poverty, residential mobility, housing density and percentages of single parent households in a locality” (Deane, 2005) In “Under One Roof,” Deane argues that housing stock and neighbourhood crime go hand in hand. While developing the North End Housing Project, a crime prevention strategy was also established; The Aboriginal Youth Renovation Program, which hired at risk aboriginal youth in the area to assist in the renovation projects. This program had a very high success rate, with many participants going on to further their education. As the area was renovated there were less spaces available to house vandals and arsonists. The issue of vacant buildings and crime is an issue that the CBRM is currently facing. As noted in the introduction of this paper; there are over 700 vacant or abandoned homes in the municipality, many of these hosts to all types of illegal activity. In 2010 the Cape Breton Regional Police created the full time position of arson investigator to deal with the growing number of intentionally set fires. At the time Staff Sergeant Mike Kennedy noted that many of the targets of arson had been derelict buildings (Cape Breton Post, 2010). The Cape Breton Regional Municipality has tried to address this issue with the creation of a derelict building bylaw which instructs the owner of the home to register the home as vacant, and fix it to meet basic habitable guidelines. The issue arises when the home is abandoned completely or possessed by an absentee owner, who is paying property taxes though not present to maintain the property. In this situation, often times the CBRM is stuck with the bill to demolish, which noted by Rick Fraser; Building and Bylaw Manage, averages at approximately $8000 to demolish an unsightly home (Cape Breton Post, 2013). In 2013, CBRM Mayor and council set aside $30,000 towards demolition of dangerous and unsightly buildings due to dear of arson and other crime, though when doing the math these funds hardly account for the hundreds of buildings that are within this category. Fraser notes that as economic conditions worsen, house maintenance is often neglected, and the CBRM sees increases in vacant and derelict dwellings (Cape Breton Post, 2013). ................................ was able to provide crime statistics for the area of the North End of Sydney surrounding the Liscombe House. Cape Breton Regional Police Criminal Analyst; ..................... was able to create a breakdown of the crime rates in a designated area (See Appendix 8). This data shows, that in 2011, the year that the Liscombe House was purchased by SACS, there were 47 property crimes; which include break and enter, theft, mischief, and arson. In the following year there were 39 property crimes, (Crime Rates for North End Sydney, 2013) though as noted by Rick Fraser, as the economy worsens there are more vacant homes, leading to higher rates of this type of crime. The area analysed contains numerous vacant or run down homes that have been the host for a list of criminal activity. The above information shows how dangerous and expensive derelict buildings can be to the community. They can be expensive in terms demolition and maintenance, as well as physically and monetarily draining on the first responders that have to respond to these calls. As noted by Donovan Rypkema “Historic preservation decreases vacancy” and with less vacancy there is less space to commit these activities. The following section includes some of what participants shared regarding community safety in the North End and how they believe the Liscombe House Project affects safety:

“It’s no longer low income rentals ... It’s a different kind of people moving in which is huge ... It’s not going to be for rent for the drug dealers to move in. We’ve seen plenty of those in the North End, who move in and stay until they get evicted or the police come and they end up in jail” (.....................) Drugs were a topical issue amongst....................discussing the Liscombe House. Several members who took part in a cleanup day in 2011 noted that needles and other drug paraphernalia were found under the deck, and the police had to be called for removal. The deck was falling apart, and later removed. The lawn was also being mowed and other yard work was done, which seemingly deterred these individuals from coming back. ....................also shared, that individuals had vandalized the home in the past; kicking in the door and stealing the radiator. This was the main reason why there was so much water and mould damage, because up until this point, the absentee owner had somebody coming in to make sure the home was heated. Since the sale of the Liscombe House to the developer there has been a constant presence of work teams and many eyes around to keep vandals at bay. During a time where the Cape Breton Regional Municipality is in a deficit, there is a strain on all municipal budgets, including those of the first responders. Their time and energy should be used wisely and not depleted by constant calls to vacant properties. These calls are a waste of community tax dollars. The Liscombe House Project is the first preservation project by SACS, and is still under construction, therefore unable to get an exact reading of how the project has affected crime rates in the area. Though it is clear that it has deterred drug use on the property, as well as vandalism, and at least one neighbour has voiced that they feel safer in the community noting that one less vacant property is one less target for crime.
4.3 Building Community Assets Community assets are broadly defined as: “Anything that can be used to improve the quality of community of life” and can be a person, physical structure, community service, or business. (Community Tool Box, 2013) Through this section the broad range of community assets created by the Liscombe House Project are highlighted. As noted by Deane in Under One Roof, as of March 2003 the North End Housing Project had brought $3.9 million in grants and financing into the community for housing work and in the same year had created $2.45 million in housing assets. Compared to the CBRM this is an extreme example, though SACS was also able to bring grant money into the local community. As shown in the SACS financial statements (See Appendix 9); $6,148.19 in grants were brought in to the Liscombe House Project. They purchased the house for $25,000 and sold it for $70,000 and when all expenses were removed, were able to generate $33, 331.60 profit for the revolving fund that would go towards the next project. The government grants will also return to the community through property taxes that will be paid on the home by the developer and tenants.
Rypkema also discusses the importance of community assets:
“Quality of life is becoming the critical ingredient in economic development and historic preservation is an important part of that quality of life equation.” (Rypkema, 2005)
Also noting the crucial need for healthy downtown cores:
“Downtown is the historic centre of most communities and a healthy downtown is vital for a community’s well being.” (Rypkema, 2005) With these authors in mind during the interview process it was interesting to see that many participants agreed with these sentiments and shared them openly. Many shared that the buildings themselves were a huge asset amongst the community, ................. sharing their reasons for moving to the North End:
“We don’t live in the official heritage district so we are outside of it, but this was the neighbourhood that I wanted to live in, we didn’t have any second choices. We wanted – I am going to say we, but I wanted to live in the North End. The reason that I wanted to live in the North End is because of the beautiful old homes. So without any efforts to establish the heritage district or individual efforts to keep some of the homes standing, who knows what would be here when we drove through - when I drove through for the first time.” (.....................)

“I was truly amazed to move to Sydney and discover I could actually purchase a piece of Sydney’s history, and at a very reasonable price.” (.......................)
Another participant discussed why people move to an area:
“There should be a cityscape or townscape that is attractive ... we’d like to get people to move here. That’s why people move to a small place.” (........................)
Others discussed the general value in historic buildings:
“Just a few years ago there weren’t really any assets in the community, and now with Holy Angels in terms of where it’s going and you see these houses being completely redone – these are assets that you can’t find anywhere else in Sydney or Cape Breton.” (.......................)
“Every time you see a house fixed up in the North End it ups the value of the people that are there and it’s changed over the past ten years with the Heritage Conservation District, with Liscombe, with the Market House, with all of the renovations that are putting money into our neighbourhood.” (................................)
“When you go to any city around the world what you really notice are the old buildings, right? Because that’s what tells you a story – not these new buildings like everywhere in the world ... And with the old buildings, really it’s a reflection of what the community was like at that time ... it really reflects the history more than, you know, what we have now.” (............................)

Cultural or heritage tourism was also a popular topic among participants, with many sharing their thoughts on the connection between heritage preservation and tourism:
“I feel like they [historic preservation projects] are kind of cornerstones of the right direction for, you know, all of the people getting off the cruise ships and kind of getting dumped into the North End and going for walking tours. So the down town and the North End, that’s all they are ever going to see ... And you know this beauty and character and the environments that other communities in particular, in the States, that they create based on their heritage homes ... So I think that we might, these might be the start of something like that for people who visit here – that’s great.” (.....................)
“And from a tourism view, it’s [North End Historic Properties] almost something that’s unique in North America. If someone is interested in North American history, like there’s no churches from 1780 in New York. There’s none in Boston, you know, in Los Angeles – because they have to just keep building on top of everything. It’s very rare that you have this in a city and that is a tourist draw.” (............................)
“A lot of what we talked about with the heritage district was not just maintaining a heritage house, but the streetscape was very important to us ... when people get off the cruise ships, they don’t get off to see office buildings because Sydney is nothing that can compete with Boston or New York or any of those places where these people actually come from - Like we are nothing in comparison to them. What they get off the ships to see is to walk up the hill and to be in the eighteenth century.” (...................................)
“As the first point of contact for cruise ship passengers, our neighbourhood is simply inundated with tourists when ships dock. I am also seeing many non-cruise ship tourists who have come to the neighbourhood to visit the various open historical homes/churches.” (.............................) It is not surprising that tourism was a popular topic when looking at the local economy. Nova Scotia, and Cape Breton especially have a very strong tourism industry; with one of the key marketing tools being the history of the area. As indicated by Destination Cape Breton, tourism in the Sydney Area increased in 2013. The number of those coming in on cruise ships combined with the number visiting a Visitor Information Centre increased by 136.45 percent in June and 65.98 percent increase in July from 2012 numbers (Destination Cape Breton, 2013). Rypkema also explores the affect that historic preservation has on the tourism sector, dedicating a full chapter of research to the topic.
“Historic resources are amongst the strongest community assets for attracting visitors.” (Rypkema, 2005)
“Studies from around the country are beginning to show that historic sites and buildings are amongst one or two of the most important attractions to tourists and travellers. Historic sites are now more important than recreational assets as a tourism draw.” – Forum Journal, “Selling American Heritage Without Selling Out (Rypkema, 2005)
“When heritage tourism helps to improve the quality of life for local residents, it also increases the appeal of the community as a place to live and work.”
Main Street News, Is Heritage Tourism Right for Your Community? (Rypkema, 2005) The above discusses participant opinion, as well as historic preservation research that recognize tourism as a valuable community asset; especially in the case of tourism created through historic properties. Community pride was also a common theme among participants and reiterated by Hanley and Serge:
“Good housing helps people feel proud of their neighbourhood and increases their interest in making it a long term home.” (Hanley and Serge, 2006)
.................... who participated in the work parties and other stages of the project shared stories of conversations they had with neighbours and passers-by:
“So the way the North End is, people would just sort of – if you were around outside they would migrate to you. I think the first April work party I don’t even know how much work we got done because we were talking to so many neighbours. People across the street from the house they’d just done over right on the corner - they were so happy that people were finally doing work ... When we would be on the property if they were coming by, they would, you know, make comments about how it was nice to see something being done with the house.” (........................)
“There was a lot of people that kind of dropped by – people that lived in it when it was a group home or just like neighbours that were interested and there was a real sense of oh this is really exciting – someone is going to finally do something with it. There was a lot of people that really felt it was such a shame to leave it.” (......................) Neighbours, themselves also shared their responses to the project and conversations with other neighbours:
“The people who knew everything that’s happening in the community – they were pleased with the course that was going to be taken.” (.............................)
“I think initial reactions – It’s super! Especially because that was after 96-98 Charlotte Street was torn down ... So there was I think a little more awareness of how quickly something can go from standing to non-existent, so yea definitely relieved and excited.” (...........................)
“It’s been wonderful to see the restoration progress. I spoke to volunteers from time to time while they were doing some work.” (.............................) The above expresses the positive energy that was surrounding the Liscombe House Project, translating into neighbourhood pride. Many also noted that when there are tangible results, it is easier to picture what the neighbourhood could look like, inspiring some to put more work into their own building. One participant shared thoughts on the spin off from the project in terms of building momentum in the neighbourhood:
“I don’t know if all the renovations that have happened have been a result of Liscombe House but I think it makes it a little more viable – well look at what is right next door ... I think it has had a positive impact in that people see it differently.” (..................................) Another SACS member shared her opinion:
“I mean it’s very noticeable down there down town in the North End so I think as an example or catalyst for change, it was a pretty good choice.” (...................................) A neighbour discussed what she believed historic preservation work did for the community:
“We’ve [members of the North End] been seeing a general resurgence in the neighbourhood and each time a building is revived or renovated it created a local buzz and I believe, some more momentum to others to improve their property. I also hope it’s contributing to a general optimism which may perhaps bring buyers that would otherwise not consider this neighbourhood suitable, into the area.” (................................) This is reiterated by .......................who is confident that the restoration of the Liscombe House will have spin-off in the area:
“I suspect it will likely initiate others to improve properties in this area; I worked on another property many years ago in Saint John and it was responsible for initiating several other upgrades in the neighbourhood. That area of Saint John is a totally different neighbourhood today.” (...........................) As demonstrated in the passages above, as well as the American examples earlier in this paper – the preservation of one property or two properties has the potential to get the ball rolling in a neighbourhood. Through grant money and private investment coming into the area, there is the opportunity to fix up properties and improve the quality of life of neighbourhoods. This can spin-off to create many types of community assets, such as: attracting business, attracting homeowners, boosting tourism, and inspiring others to have pride in their community, possibly renovating their own property. The Liscombe House example is still under construction, though it is clear through participant feedback that community assets have already been created, and there is much optimism for the future of the neighbourhood.

4.4 Creating Local Employment Of the $3.3 million spent on renovation work on the North End Housing Project in Winnipeg, approximately $1.03 million went to labour wages and benefits, with 90% of NEHP labour hired locally. Deane analyzed the cost benefit of employment from the project noting that when hiring an individual that was previously unemployed, up to fifty percent of the public funds used for the renovation project were returned to the public, because the individual was able to take part in society (Deane, 2005). From the beginning, those involved in the Liscombe House Project were very invested in supporting the local community. In early stages when looking at contractors, SACS hired a local contractor to remove and dispose of the mould for just under $2000 (SACS minutes, January 21, 2013). A local contractor was also hired to do the roofing work estimated at just under $6,500. Not only did this contract keep funds local, the contractor gave a portion of her profits to community causes (...................) The trend of local employment continued during the sale to the developer. .........a native of Cape Breton though current resident of..............., returned home on the weekends to work on the project; his parents overseeing the construction while he was away. .................. shared the same passion for hiring locally over the ten month construction period, sharing that all of the crews that did the construction; 18-20 people as noted by ...............were hired locally. In the almost year that the construction project took place, .................... invested over $210,000 into labour and materials with the majority of it being local. (...........................) Ninety percent of the materials were purchased in Sydney, at Rona; a locally owned and operated business (....................). Supporting a local business with such a large contract also adds to local employment and is a great example of community economic development – allowing wealth to be created and retained in the community. Job creation is one of the biggest arguments in an area for any type of construction project and Rypkema argues that this is definitely the case for historic preservation:
“Historic rehabilitation ... can spend up to seventy percent in labour costs, labour that is most often hired locally, which keeps these dollars within the community.” – The Economic Benefits of Historic Preservation in Colorado (Rypkema, 2005) Rypkema also argues that historic preservation creates more jobs than the same amount of new construction because the work is more labour intensive, and requires more skilled labour (Rypkema, 2005). He also notes that historic preservation has ongoing impact beyond the project itself – much of this noted in the previous building community assets section. The Liscombe House project had a direct impact on local employment through the hiring of contractors, electricians, painters and many others though also had an indirect impact on employment in the community. This occurred through the materials purchased at Rona; a local business, promoting others to renovate, and adding to the tourism assets as well as adding overall attractiveness to the community.
4.5 Stabilizing Property Values and Taxes Due to the size of the NEHP cluster project in Winnipeg, Deane was able to measure the impact the project had on the local housing market. Because of the large size of the William Whyte area, this data did have some limitations. Gathering data for the five areas in the cluster was time consuming and resource depleting, so it was decided that in order to yield the best results, a smaller sample would have to be taken. The micro neighbourhood of Alfred Avenue was chosen, an area that housed ten NEHP properties. Trends were compared to those on three adjacent streets. In 2000, when the renovations were completely underway, as well as several years during construction, the Alfred Avenue street prices were substantially higher than the three adjacent streets (Deane, 2005). As noted by Deane “It certainly appears that NEHP renovation work had an impact on housing prices in William Whyte.” The Liscombe House Project, as noted in the limitations, is a single property that is currently being renovated to house two apartments. Because of this it cannot be measured in the way that William Whyte was in Winnipeg, though trends and conversations with the developer and stakeholders suggest that this project will affect property values in the community.
“The size of a house and the number of bathrooms are important in determining the price of a home, but the character of the neighbourhood in which the house is located affect the price the most.” – National Association of Home Builders (Rypkema, 2005). When the old Sydney Society was first interested in purchasing the Liscombe House it was assessed at $84,000. This was a number from years prior, before there was extensive roof, water, mould and vandal damage. The group was able to get the home reassessed at a much lower price, and purchase the home for $25,000. This was helpful during the renovation process while the group was paying property taxes on the house. After ............renovated the home it was assessed again, which was able to increase the asking price and was sold for $70,000. (....................) Since the purchase, there has been a tremendous amount of work done to the house. When asked, .............had not had the house reassessed at this time, so was unsure of the exact property value, but suspected it had increased dramatically since he purchased, noting that this would most likely have a similar effect on surrounding property (........................)
“It’s a big improvement in the North End. I mean it was kind of a rundown home so now it’s back to its original glory ... Every house that’s fixed up adds more value to the properties and more value to the community” (................................) .............. mentioned that the increased property value would unfortunately increase his property tax payments, though this is extremely beneficial to the Cape Breton Regional Municipality, especially when so many vacant properties have absentee owners who are tax delinquent. ......................................on the Liscombe House Project adds to this argument:
“I think it’s a really good example, you know? Definitely when they reassess it for property tax rates next year, you know, it’s going to be a huge difference ... With a lot of buildings, nobody is paying taxes on them.” Although increased property values and tax are great for the wider community, it must be acknowledged that this can also be viewed as an issue. During restoration projects, like this one, the goal is not to gentrify the area, it is to promote vibrancy and development. The issue of gentrification is something that was touched on by several participants and is also discussed by both Deane and Rypkema, as shown below:
“There were a couple of people who were concerned about our plans because they didn’t know if it was – if there was going to be gentrification in the neighbourhood or sort of all those things. But the house was in such terrible condition ... that you just had to have that conversation with them saying like you know if it had have been left another year or two it would have been torn down.” (...............................) Deane and Rypkema have both addresses the issue of gentrification in housing projects, making the argument that mixed income neighbourhoods are an important part of vibrant communities. Rypkema notes that as the historic preservation movement expanded in the United States, preservationists were stuck in the middle – wanting to develop historic properties and increase property values, though not displace residents (Rypkema, 2005).
“Rather than displacing low and moderate income residents, historic designation can provide the context for a greater mix of incomes, making for more interesting and diverse communities.” – The Economic Benefits of Historic Preservation in Colorado (Rypkema, 2005)
“Accommodating families of all incomes in historic neighbourhoods is such an obvious strategy that every community should be pursuing it ... Because of the diversity of housing, nearly every-socio economic group can find the appropriate place to live” (Rypkema, 2005). Deane, whose research focuses on affordable housing also discusses the necessity for economic diversity in communities. He notes that mixed income housing helps build social capital in communities and should be considered during city renewal. It can also affect crime levels, and other quality of life indicators (Deane, 2005) This concern was raised by only one or two neighbours during the Liscombe House Project, though is a valid concern. There are plenty of examples where development has pushed residents out of the area who are no longer able to afford to live there, either accidentally or intentionally. This concept is definitely not within the mandate of ............ There is much overlap between local housing committees such as..............................., and the number one concern of these organizations is the well being of the community. In conclusion, the value of the Liscombe House is increasing as more work is being done, and will result in two high end apartments housing two reliable tax payers. This will be very beneficial to the CBRM and is projected to increase the value of the community.
4.6 Conclusion This chapter applied Deane’s return on investment model on the Liscombe House. The data was divided and analyzed as it pertained to Deane’s indicators, with each topic being discussed in depth. It was determined that based on these indicators, at this stage of the project, there has been a substantial return on investment from Liscombe House Project in the North End of Sydney. Though not as quantifiable as the work done by Deane in Winnipeg, the Liscombe House Project has begun to impact the community, and will continue to as the construction wraps up, and the tenants move in.

Chapter Five: Recommendations and Conclusion
5.1 Introduction This final chapter is comprised of a summary of the research paper, the findings, as well as a discussion regarding the recommendations. The purpose of this study was to measure the return on investment from the Liscombe House Project, by gathering both qualitative and quantitative data. The findings discussed information provided by participants who took part in the preservation project, or stakeholders that were connected to the North End of Sydney that had valuable information regarding the Liscombe House.
5.2 Study Summary As noted above, the purpose of this case study was to measure return on investment. By applying Lawrence Deane’s model to the Liscombe House Project, it was determined that the time and money put into the project was worth it, creating community assets, as well as turning a profit for future preservation projects. The research study begins by providing a snap shot of the current state of the CBRM; a post-industrial community that is facing hard economic times, as well as a growing issue of vacant properties. Next, several examples of other post industrial communities are introduced, and are discussed based on efforts being made to turn vacancies into community opportunities, justifying efforts in the CBRM. Next, historic preservation is introduced to the paper – noting that these post-industrial communities are made up of heritage properties that are vacant or neglected. Here, the study topic: The Liscombe House is introduced. The stages of the project are discussed, from the first interest by Old Sydney Society to the current construction that is taking place under the direction of the owner; Kenneth MacKeigan. The literature is then discussed. The literature review is divided into two categories: historic preservation and return on investment, with bodies of work explaining the history and trends of the concepts. Historic preservation looks at how, both the American and Canadian historic preservation movement have developed as well as the gaps in the literature and policy. The return on investment section explores the Lawrence Deane model used for this study, as well as economic benefit researched done by Donovan Rypkema, reinforcing that the socio-economic benefits of historic preservation can be measured. Chapter three focuses on the methodology used in the study, noting that both quantitative and qualitative methods were used to gain insight on the project and measure return on investment. Here the participants, data collection and analysis are discussed. Chapter four explores the findings of the study that were analysed to measure return on investment, and discussed in detail below. This final chapter summarizes the study findings and offers recommendations that arose through data collection and reviewing the literature.

5.3 Summary of Findings The information provided by participants was divided into five categories, four of which were indicators used to measure return on investment: Neighbourhood Safety, Building Community Assets, Creating Local Employment, Stabilizing Property Values and Taxes. The fifth category was made up of other valuable information pertaining to the house. A fifth category: other information was comprised of participant’s experiences and stories about the Liscombe House Project, and was useful to gain further knowledge on different steps of the project and how it was viewed by others. Neighbourhood Safety looked at the Sydney’s North End crime statistics as well as local news articles discussing the increased crime surrounding vacant buildings. Participant data included past destruction of the property as well as the discovery of drug paraphernalia. It was concluded that the Liscombe House has the potential to lower crime rates in the area. One less vacant property is one less host for vandalism, arson and other crime. Building Community Assets was the most robust section of the findings, due to the scope of the topic. This section showed numerous community benefits resulting from the project. Several participants shared that historic preservation is why they moved to the neighbourhood, while others discussed how the buildings themselves are assets that don’t exist in other places. Heritage tourism was a popular response for many participants, noting that the North End is where cruise ships land and the history of the area is a tourism draw. Community pride as a momentum builder is also discussed – noting that when a home is renovated in the North End it often sparks others to do work. It was concluded that the Liscombe House has built community assets during the preservation process by increasing the value of the neighbourhood, and will continue to. Creating Local Employment was the next indicator to be measured. This section discussed the local employment created by .............. when renovating the property for sale including roof and mould work. The employment created by the developer was also discussed, noting that in the past ten months over $210,000 was spent on local labour and mostly local materials. The indirect job creation benefits of the project were also discussed. Stabilizing Property Values and Taxes was the final indicator to be measured, and looked at how the Liscombe House could affect the properties in the area. The home is still under construction and has not been reassessed at this time though the value has already substantially increased since purchase, and will likely affect local property values and tax base. It was determined after applying the return on investment model that the Liscombe House has created a positive return on investment for the North End community.
5.4 Recommendations The ultimate goal of this research study was to measure return on investment of the Liscombe House Project, though the fact that return on investment has not been used to measure projects in the community thus far is an underlying issue. Throughout the research explored in this study, many examples of successful historic preservation projects have been shared. The common theme among these examples is capacity building. These successful projects had the tools and support in place to measure the benefits and document these findings. The findings of this study have shown that the Liscombe House created a positive return on investment for the community, though without this analysis, there would be no formal way to measure that. This is a missed opportunity for the preservation community. While reviewing the literature, it was found time and time again that there is a disconnect between the preservation movement and local decision makers, government, and the wider society as expressed in the following passages:
“So where do preservationists fit into the scheme of things? Are we mere folks who think that the apex of civilization was reached in the 19th century and are vainly trying to recreate the vanished world? No, we are not making futile, reactionary gestures. Rather we are representing the cutting edge of a true cultural revolution ... and we are struggling to reverse the use it up and move on mentality.” – Clem Labine (Tyler, 2006)
“Decision makers - public officials, bankers, property owners, and others – are not, by and large, evil, ignorant, or mean. They are our neighbours and they care about our community as much as we do. If we as preservationists do our job in communicating the commonsense economics of historic preservation to these decision makers, they will join us in ensuring that fewer of our historic resources will be lost.” (Rypkema, 2005)
5.4.1 Demystifying Historic Preservation When involved in a cause, organization, or movement, people often surround themselves with like minded individuals and are not able realize that the vision, or mandate may not be as clear to the outside world, as it is to them. Rypkema explains this well when noting that there is often a language barrier between preservationists and the wider community. Building a stronger historic preservation movement in the CBRM begins with communicating the goals and benefits in a way that is understandable, and appealing to the larger community – and this is the language of economics. After reviewing the literature, gathering participant information and other research, the one overarching recommendation that I put forward is that ..........., with help from other community stakeholders, work towards demystifying historic preservation in the local area. This includes sharing the findings that there are socio-economic benefits of historic preservation. ..............., a member of ................ as well as several other local housing organizations, shared this concern when interviewed, stating:
“I don’t know how it would be done but to me that is the biggest priority – to change people’s minds about the value, of not just of historic preservation, but of having an attractive town.” Locally, the historic preservation movement is quite strong; housing the first Heritage Conservation District in Cape Breton, as well as organizations such as .........................., though the efforts by these organizations are often shared with a targeted audience. As a neighbour to the Liscombe House points out, the local historic movement news is not always shared in a way that gets it the best publicity:
“As for public perception ... well, this is where I’d have to say I guess that promotionally speaking I’m not sure if it was very high profile among the general community. If I hadn’t read the article in the Post I’m not sure I’d have known this was an undertaking of the historical association” (.................................) At the same time, this also addresses the issue that historic preservation is not on the radar of many members of the community. Often times, this work is not front page news, which stems back to the education and culture that comes from strong preservation policy. The literature shows that both in America and Canada, it has not been easy to gain government support for historic preservation though as the years go on they are building momentum. The Liscombe House Project has been proven to be a worthwhile investment and can be used as an important success story in building a case to create stronger policies. It is important that this project be shared with the community in a way that is accessible and showcases the benefits that historic preservation can have. Several participants, who are proponents to historic preservation voiced concerns about the community’s views of historic preservation:
“Here in Sydney in particular, maybe across Cape Breton but certainly in Sydney I think that there s a real lack of appreciation for that [historic properties] and because we have this large, long period of time where there was so much poverty here that people seem to have this idea that any new building ... that that’s something good, right?” (.....................................)
“I find it funny that people in Sydney don’t even seem to know what they have - Like they are really so completely unaware of it. And that’s really such a shame ...” (......................................)
“At the most elemental level economics and preservation are fundamentally about the same thing – saving scarce resources” (Rypkema, 2005) Historic preservation can apply to many different groups of stakeholders: the preservationists who want to save the culture, the local decision makers that want to address vacant housing problems, the investors who want to develop, and neighbours who want to live in a vibrant community. It comes down to the power of effective communication – getting all of these groups on the same page, and removing the stigma that is associated with historic preservation. Historic preservation is not for special interest groups, or in opposition of progress, it is a viable solution to many societal issues.

5.5 Conclusion In Donovan Rypkema’s extensive research on “The Economics of Historic Preservation” he provides 100 arguments for the benefits of historic preservation, the last of these being “historic preservation makes economic sense.” The Cape Breton Regional Municipality has a vacant property problem and is now using tax dollars for demolition and maintenance. Many of these buildings have historic value, and are currently salvageable, though won’t take long to depreciate. Local housing committees have been created to address this issue, at the same time working towards creating safe and affordable housing in the community. It has been demonstrated that ................was able, through a ....................., to purchase, renovate, and sell a home to a developer for future use. This created housing in the community as well as many other socio-economic benefits as noted in the findings. This concept is reinforced by the many examples of successful projects that were explored throughout the pages of this paper. In the introduction, post-industrial communities throughout the United States were used to show the benefits associated with vacant property renovations. The projects in Philadelphia, Michigan, Baltimore, and Pittsburgh showed that neighbourhoods were improving due to the efforts made by local decision makers to fix up and sell these properties. These vacant property movements were linked to improving neighbourhood safety as well as boosting property values, municipal taxes and over all community pride. Next, were the historic preservation examples of Georgia and Massachusetts, researched by Donovan Rypkema. These examples showed the many economic benefits of historic preservation projects including job creation and increased tax dollars for the community. The above examples, combined with the research conducted on the Liscombe House Project, show that historic preservation is a viable solution to many issues within our community.

North End resident .................. captures this sentiment when stating:
“Being able to save a historic property, turn it over to .. private sector development that’s going to maintain the integrity of the heritage assets that the home has and people are going to live in it, right? It seems like such a perfect solution to so many of the vacant homes in the North End. So I mean, people need places to live, people have money to invest to turn heritage homes into usable apartments. I think that’s probably the biggest impact, that there’s a really amazing end use and they can still be considered heritage properties.” (...............................) Historic preservation makes economic sense, and the return on investment created by the Liscombe House demonstrates just that.

References
Baltimore Housing (2013) Vacants to Value. Retrieved from” http://www.baltimorehousing.org/vacants_to_value.aspx

Beaton Institute, Cape Breton University. Liscombe family fonds 1860-1957

Bland, Sidney. (1999) Preserving Charleston’s Past, Shaping Its Future: The Life and Times of Susan Pringle Frost. South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. (2013) Cape Breton Unemployment Rate hits 17.5%.Retrieved from: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova- scotia/story/2013/03/11/ns-cape-breton-unemployment.html

Cape Breton Affordable Housing Renovation Partnership. (2010) 2010-2015 Business Plan. Sydney, Nova Scotia: Harker Associates

Cape Breton Post (2010) Police hire arson investigator. Retrieved May 2013 from http://www.capebretonpost.com/News/Local/2010-10-13/article-1846677/Police-hire- arson-investigator/1

Cape Breton Post (2011) Housing Renovation Partnership to take on first project – historic Liscombe House. Retrieved December 2012 from http://www.capebretonpost.com/News/2011-06-27/article-2616309/Housing- renovation-partnership-to-take-on-first-project---historic-Liscombe-House/1

Cape Breton Post (2012) CBRM steps up enforcement of its derelict building bylaws. Retrieved April 2013 from http://www.capebretonpost.com/News/Local/2012-04-27/article- 2965972/CBRM-steps-up-enforcement-of-its-derelict-building-bylaws/1
Cape Breton Post (2012) Derelict properties in the CBRM causing concern. Retrieved January 2013 from http://www.capebretonpost.com/News/Local/2012-11-16/article- 3121841/Derelict-properties-in-CBRM-causing-concern/1

Cape Breton Post (2012) New Software helps track derelict buildings. Retrieved May 2013 from http://www.capebretonpost.com/News/Local/2012-01-25/article-2874138/New- software-helps-track-derelict-buildings/1

Cape Breton Post (2013) CBRM devises plan to tear down abandoned buildings. Retrieved August 2013 from http://www.capebretonpost.com/News/Local/2013-08-23/article- 3362568/CBRM-devises-plan-to-tear-down-abandoned-buildings/1

Cape Breton Regional Municipality (2008) Heritage Conservation District Plan: North End Sydney. Retrieved May 2013 from http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CD MQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbrm.ns.ca%2Findex.php%3Foption%3Dcom_docm an%26Itemid%3D417%26task%3Ddoc_download%26gid%3D141&ei=n6QxUqLfEtO64AP sloGYCw&usg=AFQjCNEpQ3Sr4SF1lGb6HtrOxu8pDw__Lw

Cape Breton Regional Municipality (2009) Cape Breton Regional Municipality Integrated Community Sustainability Plan: “A Discussion Paper.” (50-55) Retrieved February 2013 from http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC oQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbrm.ns.ca%2Findex.php%3Foption%3Dcom_docma n%26task%3Ddoc_download%26gid%3D131%26Itemid%3D417&ei=vqMxUvCzEs- y4APuq4GoCg&usg=AFQjCNFY5ROrLEd1dLiGK_GpQGn9oob4WA

Cape Breton Regional Police (2013) Crime Rates for the areas of North End Sydney. Sydney, Nova Scotia
Centre for Urban Policy Research (2002) Economic Impacts of Historic Preservation in Massachusetts. Retrieved May 2013 from http://www.sec.state.ma.us/mhc/mhcpdf/Economic_Impacts_2002.pdf

Deane, Lawrence. (2006) Under One Roof: Community Economic Development and Housing in the Inner City. Winnipeg: Fernwood Publishing
Destination Cape Breton (2013) Visitor Information Centre Visitation Stats for June and July. Retrieved August 2013 from http://dcba-info.com/frontpage/visitor-information-center- visitation-stats-for-june-july/

Econsult Corporation. (2010) Vacant Land Management in Philadelphia: The Cost of the Current System and the Benefits of Reform. Retrieved December 2012 from: http://penniur.upenn.edu/uploads/media_items/vacant-land-executive- summary.original.pdf

Government Finance Review (2000) Profiting from the Past: The Economic Impact of Historic Preservation. Retrieved May 2013 from http://www.gfoa.org/downloads/EconomicImpactofHistoricPreservationinGeorgia.pdf

Hanley, M. Serge, L, (2006) Putting Housing on the CED Agenda In Community Economic Development: Building for Change (Chapter 10). Sydney, Nova Scotia: Cape Breton University Press.

Heritage Canada Foundation (2013) Retrieved April 2013 from http://www.heritagecanada.org/

Maxwell, A. Joseph (2013) Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. George Mason University. Sage Publications.

MBA in CED (2013). Understanding Research [Class Handout]. Shannon School of Business, Cape Breton University, Sydney Nova Scotia

Michigan Vacant Property Campaign (2013) Retrieved January 2013 from: http://michiganvacantproperty.org/

National Trust for Historic Preservation. (2013) Retrieved January 2013 from: http://www.preservationnation.org/resources/faq/careers-and-/what-is- historic.html

Paul Philippot (1976) Historic Preservation: Philosophy, Criteria, Guidelines. National Trust for Historic Preservation. Retrieved June 2013 from http://mestrado- reabilitacao.fa.utl.pt/disciplinas/jaguiar/philippot4-26.pdf

Pittsburgh TODAY. (2011) Nobody’s Home. Retrieved January 2013 from: http://www.pittsburghtoday.org/specialreports/NobodyHome_PghToday_v5.pdf

Rypkema, Donovan. (2005) The Economics of Historic Preservation: A community Leader’s Guide. Washington: National Trust for Historic Preservation

Statistics Canada. (2013) Census subdivision of CBRM. Retrieved December 2012 from: https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/fogs-spg/Facts-csd- eng.cfm?LANG=Eng&GK=CSD&GC=1217030

The Community Toolbox. (2013) Identifying Community Assets and Resources. Retrieved from http://ctb.ku.edu/en/tablecontents/sub_section_main_1043.aspx

The Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia (2013) Our History. Retrieved April 2013 from http://www.htns.ca/

Tyler, Norman. (2009) Historic Preservation: An Introduction to Its History, Principles, and Practice. Michigan: W.W Norton & Company

Weyeneth, Robert R. (2000) Historic Preservation for a Living City: Historic Charleston Foundation 1947-1997. South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press

Wisconsin Historical Society (2013) Italianate Architecture. Retrieved September 2013 from http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/dictionary/index.asp?action=view&term_id=9243&ter m_type_id=3&term_type_text=things

Appendices
Appendix 1 – Photos of Liscombe House Damage

Extensive mould inside the house from water damage from the roof

Damage to the siding on the house

Damage to the deck on the back of the house
Roof work being done on the Liscombe House

The house before the renovation work

Appendix 2 – Restrictive Covenant placed on the Liscombe House

Appendix 3 – Photos during the August 2013 visit to the Liscombe House

Original Staircase in the process of being painted and original fireplace being preserved

The house during preservation work: Original dormers, and window placements and re shingled to look like original lumber

This part of the foundation needed to be replaced though was matched to look like original

Appendix 4 – Heritage District

Appendix 5 – Research Ethics Board Approval

Appendix 6 – Interview questions (the interviews were semi structured and these questions were used as a guideline)
How did you first find out about the project?
What was your initial response?
Do you believe that the rest of the community had a similar response? (Why/Why not)
Do you think that historic preservation is important in the North End / larger community?
What impact do you think that the Liscombe House Project has had on the North End / Greater community?
Is there anything else you would like to share?
How did you get involved with the Liscombe House Project / SACS?
Did you want to share a little bit about the renovation process? (Roof, mould etc.)
Do you think there was a positive response from neighbours?
Can you tell me a bit about the sale of the house to the developer?
Do you think that historic preservation is important for the North End / larger community?
What impact do you think that the Liscombe House has had on the community if any?
------------------------------------------------------------
How did you get involved with the Liscombe House Project?
You had a lead role in the fundraising committee, could you tell me a bit about that?
How did the community respond to the fundraising efforts?
Do you believe that fundraising raised awareness about the project to the larger community?
As a SACS member and member of the down town community, what impact do you think the Liscombe House Project has had on the community?
Is there anything else you would like to share?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What led you to bid on the Liscombe House
What work has been done to preserve the historic significance on the outside?
Was it difficult to work within the historic covenant?
What type of employment was created by this project?
Were materials purchased locally?
What type of housing is being created and why?
How is the renovation affecting property value and taxes?
What type of impact do you think that the Liscombe House project is having on the North End and greater community?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What construction work has been done to the house since purchase?
How long has the construction taken place?
How much employment has been created / how much of the labour and materials are local?
What has the response been like from the community?
What do you think the impact of the Liscombe House is on the North End community?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- How did you get involved with the Liscombe House Project / SACS?
- You were involved in the initial stages of the project, could you tell me about that?
- Could you tell be about the work that had to be done to the house (arranging contractors, etc)
- You were also involved in clean up days – is there anything you would like to share about that?
- Do you think that Historic Preservation is important to the North End of Sydney and the larger community?
- What impact do you think that the Liscombe House has had on the community?
- Is there anything else you would like to share

Appendix 7 – Informed Consent Form
Informed Consent Form
Research Project Title: Historic Preservation in the Cape Breton Regional Municipality: Measuring the Return on Investment of the Liscombe House Project
My name is Brittany Erickson and I am an MBA student at Cape Breton University. As a requirement of the MBA program, I must complete a research project within the field of Community Economic Development. I would like to invite you to take part in my research project titled: Historic Preservation in the Cape Breton Regional Municipality: Measuring the Return on Investment for the Liscombe House Project. This research project looks to establish a framework for measuring the economic impact of historic preservation in the local area, using the Liscombe House as my focus. If you choose to participate, you will be asked to take part in an interview. These interviews are not meant to be formal. They are semi structured and meant to gain insight on the Liscombe House Project and the area of historic preservation. The interview will take place at a time and location that is convenient for you. Upon signing this consent form, you are also agreeing for your interview to be recorded. The information that you provide will not be used for any purpose other than my research project, and digital interview files will be stored safely. Access to questionnaires will only be granted to those directly connected to my research (advisors, MBA committee) As a participant, you will not receive compensation for taking part in this project. At any time you are able to ask questions regarding the methodology of this project. If at any time you do not feel comfortable you have the option to refrain from answering a question, or withdrawing from the project. Any comments that are not meant for attribution will be treated as such. My research findings will be valuable to community housing economic development organizations, heritage groups, as well as municipal and provincial policy makers.
Participants Permission:
I have read and understand the informed consent of this research project and have had all my questions regarding the project answered. I hereby acknowledge the above and give my voluntary consent to participate.
If I participate, I can withdraw at any time
____________________________________ ________________________________________
Signature Date
____________________________________________________________________________________
If you have any further questions you can contact:
Brittany Erickson, Principal Investigator
[e-mail]
[phone]
Dr. Andrew Molloy, Primary Research Advisor, Department of Political Science, Cape Breton University [e-mail] [phone]
Dr. Tom Urbaniak, Secondary Research Advisor, Department of Political Science, Cape Breton University [e-mail] [phone]
Dr. Dale Keefe, Office of Research, Cape Breton University [e-mail] [phone]
Appendix 8 – CBRM Crime Statistics