TUTOR PERINI/HUDSON YARDS PRESS RELEASE

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
63 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

TUTOR PERINI/HUDSON YARDS PRESS RELEASE

RELATED.COM
http://www.related.com/ourcompany/PressDetail.aspx?Id=109
RELATED.COM

PRESS RELEASE

RELATED COMPANIES AND OXFORD PROPERTIES ANNOUNCE THE RETENTION OF TUTOR PERINI AS CONTRACTOR FOR 26-ACRE HUDSON YARDS DEVELOPMENT
—TISHMAN CONSTRUCTION TO SERVE AS RELATED AND OXFORD'S BUILDING PARTNER

Joanna Rose 212.801.3902

1/17/2012 Related Companies and Oxford Properties Group, general partner developers of the 26-acre Hudson Yards in midtown Manhattan, today announced the retention of Tutor Perini Corporation, a prominent national civil and building construction company, as contractor for the Hudson Yards development. Related and Oxford have also reached an agreement with Tishman Construction to serve as their building partner. Construction on Hudson Yards is poised to commence later this year beginning with the southeastern tower anchored by Coach, Inc.’s global headquarters. Related has also retained Tutor Perini Corporation for a residential tower being developed just south of the Hudson Yards on 30th Street and 10th Avenue.

“Tutor Perini is a world class contractor offering decades of experience and an exemplary track record with complex large-scale developments,” said Jay Cross, President of Related Oxford Hudson Yards. “Their retention along with that of legendary builder Tishman Construction marks another significant milestone as we prepare to commence construction on the Hudson Yards later this year and bring to market an extremely compelling commercial offering for office tenants with unsurpassed transportation infrastructure, amenities, large flexible floor plates and generous tax incentives."

Ronald N. Tutor, Chairman and CEO of Tutor Perini said “We are thrilled to be playing a role in the historic Hudson Yards development and partnering with Related Companies and Oxford Properties. Our experience and expertise in significant mixed-use developments makes us an ideal fit for the creation of New York’s next great neighborhood.”

“Hudson Yards represents one of New York's greatest opportunities for future growth,” said John T. Livingston, President of Tishman Construction an AECOM Company. “As the builder of the most iconic projects here and around the World, we’re thrilled to be teaming with Related and Oxford on the transformation of Manhattan’s far West Side.”

Tutor Perini Corporation is one of the largest builders in the United States with a longstanding reputation of successful projects in New York and vicinity. Notable projects include the Greenwich Street Corridor Project at World Trade Center, Airtrain Terminal at Jamaica Station, JFK Airport Runway Reconstruction, Hudson Bergen Light Rail Transit System, Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods Resorts in Connecticut and the recently completed Resorts World Casino in New York. Related Companies and Tutor Perini worked together on the highly acclaimed 6 million square foot, $4 billion Cosmopolitan Resort that recently opened in Las Vegas.

Tishman Construction Corporation is one of the world’s leading builder’s and was founded in 1898. Tishman is currently managing construction for the 1,776-foot-high One World Trade Center and Javits Convention Center expansion and renovation in New York and the new headquarters for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in Washington, D.C.

Hudson Yards is a 26-acre mixed-use development accommodating over 13 million square feet of commercial and residential space. The master plan comprises approximately 5,000 residences, 6 million square feet of state-of-the-art commercial office space, a 1 million square foot destination retail center with an over 130,000 square foot two-level space of specialty destination restaurants, cafes, markets and bars, a five star hotel, a unique cultural space, and a new 750-seat school, all carefully planned around 14 acres of public open space. For more information please visit www.hudsonyardsnewyork.com.

###
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hudson Yards to be built by California developer

Queens Crapper
http://queenscrap.blogspot.com/search/label/related%20company

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4013383690175122264&postID=2107957502469011874

Anonymous Anonymous said...

    I am only too happy that the NYC-based contractors and construction unions are getting screwed. They never cared about local neighborhoods when they and their bought politicians ran through these massive projects. Only fair that they must sit on the sidelines.

    Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Anonymous Anonymous said...

    serves the unions right. make them sit out and watch this one.

    Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Anonymous Anonymous said...

    Yeah: let's send OUR money out of town to spite the unions. Are you nuts?

    Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TUTOR PERINI/HUDSON YARDS PRESS RELEASE

Ted
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by RELATED.COM
90% - 10% for 100% for Wage & Benefit Package Now...NO PLA's, NO SIDE DEALS


When you want the best trained most productive and safest workforce in NYC, you pay for it.

*********************************************************************
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TUTOR PERINI/HUDSON YARDS PRESS RELEASE

Ted
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by RELATED.COM
Racking Up Big Points For Prefab
Hospital team is gung ho about the potential of multitrade prefab to produce better buildings faster, more safely and for less money

09/08/2010
By Nadine M. Post
Text size: A A

[ Page 1 of 3 ]


An inadvertent meeting of the minds during planning for a 484,000-sq-ft hospital in Dayton, Ohio, turned into an effort that has propelled multitrade prefabrication of hospital components to a new level. In the most ambitious U.S. implementation of the strategy, the construction manager estimates that prefabbing the 178 identical patient rooms and 120 overhead corridor utility racks sliced more than two months from construction and 1% to 2% off the cost of the $152-million building, which is 90% complete.

Graph Image: Skanska-Shook

Skanska-Shook's original schedule for the Miami Valley Hospital did not include the multitrade prefabrication of the 120 overhead corridor racks and the 178 hospital patient rooms on five levels of the 12-story building.

The first effort is seen as just a beginning. “I want to change the design of hospitals with this process,” says Marty Corrado, project executive for field operations in Skanska USA Building Inc.’s Nashville office. Skanska leads a joint venture with the local Shook Construction to build the 12-story Miami Valley Hospital Southeast Addition. “This is going to revamp the entire [hospital-delivery] process as we know it,” says Corrado.

For the job, building team leaders decided, during design development, to join mechanical, electrical, plumbing (MEP) and drywall trades in a warehouse to assemble five levels of racks, bathroom pods and bed “head” walls. “The unique part of this project was combining the MEP in our prefab unit,” Bobby Coyle, executive vice president of drywall contractor Dayton Walls & Ceilings Inc., Dayton.

If the decision to prefab had been made on day one, the team could have cut four to six months from the schedule and still produced a higher-quality building more safely, says Corrado.

As it was, the prefab strategy helped recoup a large part of a 14-week delay, caused by the need to pull out 10 footings and redesign foundations after the discovery of a sandy seam of soil missed during test bores. “They picked up eight to 10 weeks because of the prefab,” says Bob Eling, director of strategic construction for Miami Valley Hospital (MVH), which is owned by Premier Health System.

Multitrade prefab has all the pluses of single-trade prefab: a controlled environment; increased safety by doing typical overhead work, including welding, at bench height rather on ladders; increased productivity, eliminated turf wars and minimized waste. In the warehouse, there were only 18 workers assembling 178 patients’ rooms and 120 racks. There were no shop injuries.

Worker productivity for laying pipe, for example, went up 300% over site-work productivity, while labor costs were down about 20%, says Corrado.


“I want to change the design of hospitals with this process.”

– marty corrado, Project Executive, Skanska USA Building Inc.

A schedule boost is concurrent prefab and building structure work, without crews tripping over each other. “We built 35% to 40% of the project without even stepping onto the site,” says Bill Riddle, vice president of construction for TP Mechanical Contractors, Cincinnati.

With multitrade prefab, jobsite safety is easier to manage because fewer workers are required, site deliveries and storage needs are reduced, and turf battles are eliminated. In the field, it took an eight-hour work day to install 33 bathroom pods and only 1.5 weeks to rough-in a 30,000-sq-ft patient floor.

To achieve the advantages, the approach requires full-team collaboration, early design decisions and shifts in process and schedule. “The earlier the process starts, the more successful the prefab will be,” says Mark Smith, project manager for the local Chapel Electric Co. LLC.

“Decisions about how the utilities attach to the building frame and decisions about patient-room design had to be accelerated four to six months,” adds Tim Fishking, a principal in the Columbus office of project architect NBBJ.

For multitrade prefab, affected subcontractors need to be brought in about halfway through design development, to offer their two cents on production efficiency and constructibility. Prefab works best under a design-build scenario, but design-assist also works, says Corrado.

On MVH, the meeting of the minds occurred when the topic of prefab came up during a planning session of NBBJ, Skanska-Shook and MVH, on Oct. 18, 2007. Independently,...

_______________________________________
reader comments:


 Anonymous wrote:

Brilliant - Pref Fab Units sitting around for months in a building which is not closed in. Been there, done that...Mold Mitigation, Aspergillium, Legionella etc.....No problem here with sick building syndrome - in a Hospital no less......yee ha SKANSKA. The Prior Planning Prevents Poor Performance, the 5-P's didn't go so well here eh?

In the end, due to non-adherence to the 5-P's the experiment is with patient health & the potential for many lawsuits....insulation, drywall, duct liner getting wet......failure to mitigate, startup the HVAC & blow all the spores around and about - Kudo's to the briilant on site project staff.

And, to top it all off, you blew the schedule and burned the Owner on the substantial compeltion date and now come back with whiny excuses as to why. If we could only get away with paying minimum wage to all the Union Workers without benefits, the world would be a better place right? Afterall, this entire concept centers on eliminating Union Labor & Benefits, in cahoots with the Employer Associations, all of whom are do-nothing highly compensated executives. As long as they get theirs, to heck with all the rest.

While your experimenting with this, you need to call in a micro-biologist and conduct secret tests, best done on third shift when no one is paying attention, just to cover your tail, legally speaking of course. Sleep well patients, sleep well...just try not to breath.

 1/30/2012 4:39 PM CST


 Anonymous wrote:

Re: Prefab role in infectious disease is inaccurate. Insufficient heating of the hot-water system was cause:

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/legionnaires-outbreak-linked-to-water-1212598.html

Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TUTOR PERINI/HUDSON YARDS PRESS RELEASE

Ted
Legionnaires’ outbreak linked to water
The hot water system sickened 11 patients at Miami Valley Hospital.

By Ben Sutherly, Staff Writer
11:24 PM Thursday, July 21, 2011

DAYTON — Insufficient heating of the hot-water system in Miami Valley Hospital’s new 12-story addition was the primary reason for the largest outbreak of Legionnaires’ disease in Ohio since 2004, according to the hospital.

The outbreak of Legionnaires’ disease at the hospital in February and March highlights an unintended result of plumbing codes that could put vulnerable populations like hospital patients at risk.

In certain cases, an outbreak of Legionnaires’ disease can be an “unfortunate consequence of something that’s intended to protect public health,” said Dr. Lauri Hicks, a medical epidemiologist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In an exclusive interview this week with the Dayton Daily News, hospital officials announced the cause of the outbreak, which sickened 11 patients and may have contributed to the death of one of those patients.

Prior to occupancy of the $135 million patient tower on Dec. 28, a construction team made sure the water that supplied showers and faucets was heated to no more than 120 degrees Fahrenheit, as required by the Ohio Plumbing Code, hospital officials said.
Hospital officials said they had planned to heat the water to 130 to 140 degrees, but were told to lower the water temperature to comply with code requirements, which are intended to prevent scalding.

“When the codes recommended a certain water temperature, those codes didn’t contemplate a vulnerable population” and its susceptibility to waterborne bacteria such as Legionella, said Jennifer Theibert, the hospital’s risk-management director. The acutely ill are more susceptible to contracting Legionnaires’ disease than the general population.
State codes like Ohio’s that require hospitals to keep water temperatures at 120 degrees are “irresponsible,” said Tim Keane, who was hired by Miami Valley Hospital after it detected its first cases of Legionnaires’ disease in late February.

“One of the primary drivers of Legionella in health care are codes,” Keane said.
Such codes aim to minimize the risk of scalding by requiring caps on water temperatures. But Keane claims the risk of hot water systems becoming colonized with Legionella bacteria is far greater than those associated with scalding.

Legionella bacteria begin to die at 108 degrees Fahrenheit, according to the CDC. But not all of those bacteria die at that temperature, and water typically begins to cool as it moves away from the heating source, the CDC’s Hicks said. In large buildings, the temperature can drop as much as 10 to 20 degrees in some parts of the hot water plumbing system. Consequently, “bacteria may be thriving in the pipes near the shower head, but not in the hot water heater itself,” Hicks said.

Miami Valley Hospital is now heating water in the entire hospital to 140 degrees, and has the ability to mix hot and cold water at faucets and other points where people come in contact with the water to reduce scalding risks. The hospital also has installed a hyperchlorination system to “make sure this never happens to us again,” said Barbara Johnson, the hospital’s chief operating officer. Reduced water flow in parts of the new addition’s plumbing system also contributed to the outbreak.

Legionella is found in most water sources, but is usually contracted by breathing in mist from water that contains high concentrations of the bacteria. Legionnaires’ disease is not contagious.The hospital spent about $61,000 to eradicate Legionella from the hot water system. It declined to release both its report on the outbreak and a white paper summarizing what it’s learned.

The hospital has received inquiries about the outbreak from attorneys representing patients who had Legionnaires’ disease, but no legal action has been taken against the hospital, Theibert said.

Contact this reporter at (937) 225-7457 or bsutherly@DaytonDailyNews.com.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TUTOR PERINI/HUDSON YARDS PRESS RELEASE

Ted
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by RELATED.COM
Statement from Messer Construction regarding Cincinnati site accident

A statement from Tom Keckeis, president and chief executive officer, Messer Construction Co.:

 
First and foremost our thoughts and prayers are with the workers who were involved in the accident earlier today and their families. We are grateful to the first responders and those providing the medical attention they need during this difficult time.
 
Right now the cause of the incident remains unknown. Investigations by OSHA, structural engineers, our safety team and other officials are ongoing, and together with Rock Ohio Caesars and our construction partners we are cooperating fully. {Nice Legal Spin, which says nothing and accomplishes nothing other than the after the fact feigning of compassion for an entirely preventable event, but for the incompetence of the Superintendent and field staff and Owner staff and lack of oversight by the Projects Resident Engineer, or the Architect & Structural Engineer of record.}
 
Our top priority is to ensure everyone at our jobsites can return home safely to their families at the end of each day.  We have stringent safety processes and protocols in place to ensure our jobsites remain safe and our structures secure.
 
The overall safety record of the company is excellent and Messer ranks well below the national incident rate.  Since 2006 we have participated in more than 70 inspections by OSHA without violation. As it pertains to this jobsite, we’ve worked approximately 150,000 hours with only one lost time incident relating to a worker who suffered a heat-related illness.
 
The work taking place today was in accordance with a project schedule that has been in place for several months, and which has had the full support of all contractors involved.
 
We will share additional information as it becomes available.
 
We are committed to completing this project safely.

Published on January 27th 2012 at 6:45PM


http://messer.com/careers/craft_force
___________________________________


Craft Force
Thank you for your interest in skilled trade career opportunities. We are always excited to hear from talented and committed professionals. At Messer, we support and value those individuals who contribute daily to the construction of our buildings. If you are a person who is dedicated to your profession, values safety and opportunity, we want to hear from you!
 
Applications for employment are accepted at our regional offices between the hours of 8:00am and 3:00pm, Monday through Friday. Please note that all craft applications for individuals applying in the Cincinnati Region will be accepted at our corporate office.
 
At Messer, we are committed to the ongoing education and professional growth of our employees. We offer a variety of training programs to our craft force, including Department of Labor certified carpentry and laborer apprenticeship programs. Messer is a Training Sponsor for the National Center for Construction Education and Research (NCCER), which offers college credit for each class taken through our apprenticeship programs. In addition to these programs, we offer operator training programs for testing of the National Commission for the Certification of Crane Operators (NCCCO) and a variety of ongoing skill enhancement, soft skills and management courses to our craft force.
___________________________________

You get what you pay for. Imagine bringing aboard a Non-Union, Associated Builders & Contractors (ABC) GC such as Messer Construction to build out Hudson Yards, which has seen its orignal scope go from 6-million to a proposed 14-million square feet.

BTEA's Coletti wants all Trades in NYC to work in this manner and for their non-union wages, but the fact is, they can't even handle a simple deck pour, let alone allowing them to come into NYC and set up a Tower Crane (run). Imagine these idiots doing this phased buildout.

FACT:

AT THE END OF THE DAY, PROJECT OWNERS WANT THE BEST AND THEY CALL THE BEST AND THEY BUILD UNION. BTEA's DATA SHOWS THE AVERAGE UNION TRADESMAN IN NYC EARN'S $55K PER YEAR HARDLY AN UNREASONABLE WAGE IN NYC. TIME TO SETTLE THESE CONTRCTS LADIES W/O THE COLETTI WAGE & BENEFIT CUTS


UNION TRADES PERFORM THE WORK FASTER, SAFER & WITH BETTER QUALITY, BETTER INSURANCE MOD'S AND FEWER CALL BACKS. WORKFORCE TRAINING IS FAR SUPERIOR AS WELL. WE MEET & BEAT THE ACCELERATED PROJECT SCHEDULES AND THE REVENUE GENERATED BY THAT ALONE JUSTIFIES THE ADDED COST OF EMPLOYING ONLY UNION TRADESMAN.

OF COURSE, HUDSON YARDS & BTEA's COLETTI COULD PROVE ME WRONG & CALL MESSER OR ANY ONE LIKE THEM AND SEE HOW FAR YOU GET WITH THAT CREW AND WATCH YOUR ACCELERATED SCHEDULE TAKE DOUBLE TO TRIPLE THE TIME TO COMPLETE FROM THE NTP, WHILE YOU'RE STUCK ABSORBING THE BONDS & COSTS OF FINANCING THE PROJECT.

Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TUTOR PERINI/HUDSON YARDS PRESS RELEASE

Ted
In reply to this post by RELATED.COM
How you make Money...ya gotta have the toys

http://www.tutorsaliba.com/capabilities/fontana-yard.html
______________________________

How to get er done boys

http://archrecord.construction.com/projects/portfolio/2010/08/citycenter.asp

Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TUTOR PERINI/HUDSON YARDS PRESS RELEASE

Ted
In reply to this post by RELATED.COM
Cite as: Dynalectric Company v. Clark & Sullivan
127 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 41
July 14, 2011
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
No. 51758
DYNALECTRIC COMPANY OF NEVADA, INC., A NEVADA CORPORATION,
Appellant,
vs.
CLARK & SULLIVAN CONSTRUCTORS, INC.,
Respondent.


Appeal from an amended district court judgment following a bench trial in a contract action. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Mark R. Denton, Judge.
Affirmed. Morris Peterson and Akke Levin and Steve Morris, Las Vegas; Holland & Hart, LLP, and Philip Dabney and Lars Evensen, Las Vegas, for Appellant.
McDonald Carano Wilson LLP and William A.S. Magrath, II, and Craig A. Newby, Las Vegas, for Respondent.
BEFORE DOUGLAS, C.J., CHERRY, SAITTA, GIBBONS, HARDESTY AND PARRAGUIRRE, JJ.[1]

OPINION
PER CURIAM:

In this appeal, we address the measure of damages applicable to promissory estoppel claims. We adopt a flexible approach as suggested in the Restatement (Second) of Contracts and apply the same factors that bear on promissory estoppel relief to the remedy afforded by the breach. The determination of the appropriate measure of damages in any given case turns on considerations of what justice requires and the foreseeability and certainty of the particular damages award sought. We further conclude that the presumptive measure of damages for a general contractor that reasonably relies upon a subcontractor’s unfulfilled promise is the difference between the nonperforming subcontractor’s original bid and the cost of the replacement subcontractor’s performance.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This appeal arises from a dispute between appellant Dynalectric Company of Nevada, Inc., a subcontractor, and respondent Clark and Sullivan Constructors, Inc. (C&S), a general contactor, concerning a public works project (the Project). The Project involved the expansion of the University Medical Center (UMC) in Las Vegas. In 2004, UMC solicited bids for the Project. C&S, interested in serving as the general contractor for the Project, sought bids from subcontractors. Dynalectric submitted a bid to C&S to perform the electrical work for the Project and repeatedly assured C&S of the accuracy of its bid. C&S incorporated Dynalectric’s bid into its bid to UMC for the general contract (Prime Contract). C&S was the low bidder, and UMC awarded it the Prime Contract. C&S notified Dynalectric. Subsequently, Dynalectric repudiated its obligations to C&S and refused to negotiate with C&S. C&S therefore contracted with three replacement subcontractors to complete the electrical work for the Project.

C&S then sued Dynalectric in district court under various theories of liability, including breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Dynalectric countersued for, among other theories, breach of an implied contract, fraud, and violation of NRS 338.141.[2]

Following a 12-day bench trial, the district court entered a judgment for C&S on its promissory estoppel claim and rejected each of Dynalectric’s counterclaims. The district court awarded C&S $2,501,615 in damages, which represents the difference between Dynalectric’s bid ($7,808,983) and the amount C&S paid the three replacement contractors to complete the work ($10,310,598). Dynalectric appealed.

DISCUSSION
Dynalectric contends that the district court applied the incorrect measure of damages.[3] Specifically, it asserts that the district court should not have awarded C&S expectation damages. We disagree.

Standard of review
Whether a party is “entitled to a particular measure of damages is a question of law” reviewed de novo. Toscano v. Greene Music, 21 Cal. Rptr. 3d 732, 736 (Ct. App. 2004).
Measure of damages for promissory estoppel claims Broadly speaking, Nevada follows the doctrine of promissory estoppel articulated in the Restatement (Second) of Contracts. See Vancheri v. GNLV Corp., 105 Nev. 417, 421, 777 P.2d 366, 369 (1989).

The Restatement describes promissory estoppel as follows:

A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third person and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. The remedy granted for breach may be limited as justice requires. Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 90(1) (1981).

Comment d elaborates further upon the remedies available for promissory estoppel:
A promise binding under this section is a contract, and full-scale enforcement by normal remedies is often appropriate. But the same factors which bear on whether any relief should be granted also bear on the character and extent of the remedy. In particular, relief may sometimes be limited to restitution or to damages or specific relief measured by the extent of the promisee’s reliance rather than by the terms of the promise.
Id. § 90 cmt. d (emphasis added).

Thus, under the Restatement, an award of expectation damages[4] is often an appropriate remedy for promissory estoppel claims. But, in other instances, reliance damages[5] or restitutionary damages[6] may be more suitable. Following the lead of the Restatement, we hold that the district court may award expectation, reliance, or restitutionary damages for promissory estoppel claims.[7] Although the doctrine of promissory estoppel is conceptually distinct from traditional contract principles, there is no rational reason “‘for distinguishing the two situations in terms of the damages that may be recovered.’” Toscano, 21 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 737 (quoting Signal Hill Aviation Co., Inc. v. Stroppe, 158 Cal. Rptr. 178, 185 (Ct. App. 1979)). In sum, no single measure of damages will apply to each and every promissory estoppel claim; instead, to determine the appropriate measure of damages for promissory estoppel claims, the district court should consider the measure of damages that justice requires and that comports with the Restatement’s general requirements that damages be foreseeable and reasonably certain.[8] See Restatement (Second) of Contracts §§ 351, 352 (1981).
Whether the district court used the appropriate measure of damages

We now consider whether the district court used the appropriate measure of damages when it awarded C&S promissory estoppel damages representing the difference between Dynalectric’s bid and the amount that the three replacement contractors charged C&S to complete the same work. Drennan v. Star Paving Company, 333 P.2d 757, 761 (Cal. 1958), the seminal promissory estoppel case in the subcontract bidding context, illustrates how damages should typically be computed in this situation. In Drennan, a general contractor was preparing a bid for a construction project. Id. at 758. Before the general contractor submitted its bid, a subcontractor submitted a bid of $7,131.60 to the general contractor to perform the paving portion of the project. Id. The general contractor then incorporated the subcontractor’s bid into its own bid for the project. Id. Shortly thereafter, the subcontractor informed the general contractor that it would not perform the work for the price it had originally quoted in its bid. Id. at 758-59. Ultimately, the general contractor obtained a replacement pavement subcontractor to complete the work at a cost of $10,948.60. Id. at 759. The Drennan court affirmed the trial court’s determination that the general contractor was entitled to $3,817, the difference between the subcontractor’s bid and the amount that the general contractor had to pay the replacement subcontractor to complete the work. Id. at 759, 761.

In the decades since Drennan, courts have consistently and uniformly applied the same measure of damages for promissory estoppel claims arising from a subcontractor’s repudiation of its obligations to a general contractor. See, e.g., John Price Associates, Inc. v. Warner Elec., Inc., 723 F.2d 755, 756-57 (10th Cir. 1983) (appropriate measure of damages for general contractor’s promissory estoppel claim was the difference between nonperforming electrical subcontractor’s bid and the bid of the substituted subcontractor that completed the work); Preload Technology v. A.B. & J. Const. Co., Inc., 696 F.2d 1080, 1091, 1093 (5th Cir. 1983) (damages were properly calculated as the difference between the original subcontractor’s bid and the replacement subcontractor’s bid); Janke Const. Co., Inc. v. Vulcan Materials Co., 527 F.2d 772, 780 (7th Cir. 1976) (general contractor was entitled to award representing the difference between subcontractor’s quoted prices for certain construction materials and the cost of replacement materials); Double AA Builders v. Grand State Const., 114 P.3d 835, 837, 843 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005) (upholding award consisting of the difference between nonperforming insulation subcontractor’s bid and the cost of a replacement subcontractor); Riley Bros. Constr., Inc. v. Shuck, 704 N.W.2d 197, 204 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005) (damages were properly computed as the difference between masonry subcontractor’s unperformed bid and the amount paid to two replacement subcontractors to complete the work); Branco Enterprises v. Delta Roofing, 886 S.W.2d 157, 158, 161 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994) (award based upon the difference between roofing subcontractor’s bid and the amount a substitute subcontractor charged was necessary to prevent injustice). We see no reason to depart from the well-established measure of damages used in Drennan.

Interestingly, despite the consensus that the measure of damages adopted in Drennan is appropriate in the type of situation presented here, courts have not definitively labeled this measure “expectation” or “reliance” damages. See Edward Yorio & Steve Thel, The Promissory Basis of Section 90, 101 Yale L.J. 111, 146 (1991) (noting the ambiguity in the caselaw with respect to classifying this measure of damages). Scholars appear to agree, however, that the Drennan measure of damages is, in fact, expectation damages. See id. (concluding that this measure represents expectation damages, even if occasionally labeled “reliance damages”); W. David Slawson, The Role of Reliance in Contract Damages, 76 Cornell L. Rev. 197, 221-22 (1990) (discussing the near impossibility of proving true reliance damages in the subcontract-bidding context and indicating that the Drennan measure of damages represents expectation damages); Charles L. Knapp, Reliance in the Revised Restatement: The Proliferation of Promissory Estoppel, 81 Colum. L. Rev. 52, 57 n.35 (1981) (noting the ambiguity in the caselaw on this issue and stating that an award of damages based upon the difference between the nonperforming subcontractor’s bid and the amount paid to a replacement subcontractor is “the classic expectation remedy”).

As previously noted, Dynalectric’s bid was for $7,808,983. C&S was forced to pay $10,310,598 to three replacement subcontractors to complete the work that Dynalectric refused to perform. Thus, the district court awarded C&S $2,501,615, the difference between Dynalectric’s bid and the amount C&S paid to the replacement subcontractors. This measure of damages placed C&S in the same position that it would have occupied if Dynalectric had performed as it promised, and thus, it constitutes expectation damages.
It is plain that justice required this measure of damages and that the damages the district court awarded were foreseeable and reasonably certain.
 As the district court found, Dynalectric made an unequivocal promise by submitting a bid to C&S for the electrical subcontracting of the Project. Dynalectric thereafter repeatedly assured C&S of the accuracy of the bid that it had submitted. The record demonstrates that Dynalectric fully anticipated that C&S would rely on its bid by incorporating it into its own bid for the Prime Contract. The record also shows that Dynalectric is an experienced and sophisticated subcontractor that could readily anticipate that C&S would be forced to use replacement electrical subcontractors at a higher cost to complete the work that it refused to perform. Finally, the damages that the district court awarded were reasonably certain because C&S presented detailed evidence showing that $2,501,615 represented the difference between Dynalectric’s original bid and the amount that the three replacement subcontractors charged.

CONCLUSION
The district court correctly determined that C&S was entitled to expectation damages. Justice required using this measure of damages, and the damages that the district court awarded were foreseeable and reasonably certain. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment granting C&S expectation damages.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TUTOR PERINI/HUDSON YARDS PRESS RELEASE

Ted
In reply to this post by RELATED.COM
Thursday, February 17, 2011
New owner takes Tishman Construction global
New unit, formed with construction company's chief executive and owner Aecom's name, will sell soup-to-nuts building services.

World Trade Center Site Under Construction.

By Shane Dixon Kavanaugh

One of the world's largest engineering and design firms unveiled Thursday a new division that for the first time will take projects from design through construction, and it tapped the president of one of New York's largest construction firms to make it happen.

Los Angeles-based Aecom Technology Corp. announced it has named John Livingston of Tishman Construction Corp. to lead what will be called Aecom Construction Services, which will offer its services to large commercial and institutional clients.

“Integrated delivery is a godsend for many clients,” said Mr. Livingston, who noted that such a soup-to-nuts service line has become especially attractive to increasingly cash-strapped government clients here and abroad.

The 113-year-old Tishman was bought by Aecom, which is primarily a design and engineering firm, last summer in a $245 million deal. The creation of the new unit gives Aecom the opportunity to pitch Tishman's talents around the world.

“We were a New York-centered construction company,” Mr. Livingston said. “The merger allowed us to be global in one day.”

Tishman's construction projects have included Goldman Sachs Group Inc.'s new headquarters in lower Manhattan, as well as the original World Trade Center. Its current projects include the new World Trade Center.

Last year, Aecom employed 52,000 people around the world and generated more than $6 billion in revenue.

“It doesn't surprise me that Tishman people are playing a more prominent role in the Aecom merger,” said Louis Coletti, president of the Building Trades Employer's Association. “They bring a lot to the table.”
Posted by John Musumeci at 6:29 PM  
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TUTOR PERINI/HUDSON YARDS PRESS RELEASE

Ted
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by RELATED.COM
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TUTOR PERINI/HUDSON YARDS PRESS RELEASE

Ted
In reply to this post by RELATED.COM
http://hydc.org/downloads/pdf/Hudson_Yards_final.pdf

HUDSON YARDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

http://hydc.org/html/board/board.shtml

HYDC - BOARD OF DIRECTORS & STAFF
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TUTOR PERINI/HUDSON YARDS PRESS RELEASE

Ted
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by RELATED.COM
http://www.forbes.com/sites/morganbrennan/2012/03/07/stephen-ross-the-billionaire-who-is-rebuilding-new-york/

STEPHEN ROSS: THE BILLIONAIRE WHO IS REBUILDING NEW YORK

{FORBES}

$15 Billion dollar, 10-Year Multi-phased buildout...the new Rockerfeller Center for the 21st Century.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TUTOR PERINI/HUDSON YARDS PRESS RELEASE

Ted
In reply to this post by RELATED.COM
RELATED - HUDSON YARDS, THE PIG & THE POKE, BLIND MAN'S BLUFF
__________________________________________

A. Applicable Legal Principles

Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer to refuse to bargain collectively with the bargaining representative of its employees. See Oil, Chemical & Atomic Wkrs., Local Union No, 6-418 v. NLRB, 711 F.2d 348, 357-58 (D.C. Cir. 1983).
 
It is well settled that an employer’s duty to bargain in good faith includes the duty “to provide information that is needed by the bargaining representative for the proper performance of its duties.” NLRB v. Acme Indus. Co., 385 U.S. 432, 435-36 (1967). 

The critical question in determining whether information must be produced is that of relevance to the union’s bargaining duties. The “Board’s relevance standard is ‘a liberal discovery-type standard.’” E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co. v. NLRB, 489 F.3d 1310, 1316 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (citation omitted); accord Acme Indus., 385 U.S. at 437 & n.6. Under that standard “[t]he fact that the information is of probable or potential relevance is sufficient to give rise to an obligation . . . to provide it.” Crowley Marine Servs., Inc. v. NLRB, 234 F.3d 1295, 1297 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

As this Court has recognized, the duty to provide information relevant to the issues at the bargaining table is a “fundamental obligation” that is critical to the collective-bargaining process. Oil, Chemical & Atomic Wkrs., 711 F.2d at 358. Consequently, “[a] party to good-faith collective bargaining—whether it be employer or union—cannot reasonably expect the other party to buy a pig-in-[a]-poke.” Beyerl Chevrolet, Inc., 221 NLRB 710, 721 (1977); accord Acme Indus., 385 U.S. at 438 n.8 (noting that to deny a union information is to “‘require[e] it to play a game of blind man’s bluff’”) (citation omitted).

In sum, as the Supreme Court explained in NLRB v. Truitt Manufacturing Co., 351 U.S. 149 (1956), “if . . . an argument is important enough to present in the give and take of bargaining, it is important enough to require some sort of proof of its accuracy.” Id. at 152-53.


Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TUTOR PERINI/HUDSON YARDS PRESS RELEASE

Ted
In reply to this post by RELATED.COM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBjCGTLYYto

older youtube video...birds eye view
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TUTOR PERINI/HUDSON YARDS PRESS RELEASE

Ted
In reply to this post by RELATED.COM
Are the Architects & Engineers at Hudson Yards MTA Projects going to take a 25%-40% wage & benefit cut? Ask yourselves why the wealthy developers and project owners always seek concessions off the back of the working man or woman and no other.

VOTE NO ON ALL PROPOSED CONTRACTS!

Stand your ground and force your elected rep's to engage in meaningful Contract Negotiations which provide for cost of living allowances (COLA) and which adequately fund well earned benefits; without Market Recovery Rates, Most Favored Nation or any other form of side deals.

The NYCDCC, through McCarron & Spencer has kicked back $10B of your wages & benefits to date, over 130+ PLA's. Union Carpenters and their families have sacrificed enough. This is where the rubber meets the road and where you shall see what your newly elected Executive Committee members, Council Delegate's and DC Officers are made of. It will be their defining moment.

Since the Owners, Developers, Contractor Associations and major contractors have nothing left to argue, the fall-back position is the direct threat that should you fail to sign more contracts kicking back 25-40% wages & benefits - Hudson Yards will not proceed, or the more laughable proposition - "they will build it Non-Union". Good Luck with that....
_________________________________________________

MTA Labor Coalition Elects Samuelsen, Tanzi to Top Spots
{labor press}
John Samuelsen, TWU, Local 100 President and Angelo Tanzi of ATU, Local 726
May 12, 2011
By Kismet Barksdale

NEW YORK, NY (May 12, 2011) Officers of a dozen unions representing 60,000 employees of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority elected two union leaders, John Samuelsen of TWU Local 100 and Angelo Tanzi of ATU Local 726, to serve as Chair and Co Chair of the MTA Labor Coalition. The Coalition, which has a history going back to 1991, has been reinvigorated and intends to aggressively fight to defend the wages and working conditions of members represented by each Coalition union, and to campaign for improved worker safety, Samuelsen said.

 Samuelsen’s Union, TWU Local 100, is the largest in the Coalition, with some 38,000 members including MTA bus and subway operators, track workers, cleaners, maintainers, and mechanics. ATU Local 726 represents bus operators and mechanics on Staten Island.

The Coalition has already lobbied Albany lawmakers to support A. 6766/S.4257, which would establish a “lock box” for mass transit funding to insure that it could not be “raided” for other budgetary needs. The bill is sponsored by two powerhouses in the legislature, Assemblyman Jim Brennan, who heads the Committee on Corporations and Authorities, and State Senator Martin Golden.

Other top officers elected today included Behrouz Fathi, President of Local 375 of DC 37, the Civil Service Technical Guild, and Felix Maestri, President of ARASA Lodge 1157. ARASA represents maintenance of way supervisors at the Metro North railroad. Local 375 represents some 1,200 MTA architects, designers, and engineers who predominantly work out of the Authority’s building at 2 Broadway. Besides the officers, ten board members were also chosen, representing most of the MTA Labor Coalition’s constituent unions, including the Bridge and Tunnel Officers Benevolent Association, Teamsters Local 808, Long Island Bus, and the Long Island Rail Road.
 
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TUTOR PERINI/HUDSON YARDS PRESS RELEASE

Ted
In reply to this post by RELATED.COM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BfH41wk9sc&feature=related

Costs per Square Foot - Lease-Own...Condo's etc. Remember now, Stephen Ross has a 99-year lease and this project will be a huge cash cow for decades to come. They're all going to make a killing on this project, so don't let them do it off your back, your sweat, your hard work!

Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TUTOR PERINI/HUDSON YARDS PRESS RELEASE

Ted
In reply to this post by Ted
Bovis Lend Lease fined $56 million for fraud


inShare
Share this

Email
Print
Related News
Bovis Lend Lease fined $56 million for fraud
1:59pm EDT
California campaign treasurer pleads guilty to fraud
Fri, Mar 30 2012
Analysis & Opinion
Fate of ex-UBS client cases uncertain, lawyers say
Report: Q & A – Why New York is the nation’s top online fraud center, and which transactions are riskiest
Related Topics
U.S. »
By Basil Katz
NEW YORK | Tue Apr 24, 2012 3:18pm EDT
(Reuters) - A U.S. subsidiary of the Australia's Lend Lease Construction has admitted to a 10-year overbilling scheme on New York area projects and will pay $56 million in fines and victim restitution, prosecutors said on Tuesday.


Bovis Lend Lease, as the subsidiary was previously known, has its largest U.S. office in New York City, where it employs more than 1,000 people and has worked on projects such as the September 11 Memorial in Lower Manhattan and the Citi Field baseball stadium in Queens.

Federal prosecutors in Brooklyn said the company pleaded guilty to criminal charges it had a "systematic practice" between 1999 and 2009 of billing clients -- often government agencies -- for hours its workers had never worked.

"Today's proceedings mark the culmination of a three-year investigation into a systematic pattern of audacious fraud by one of the world's largest construction firms," FBI Assistant Director in Charge Janice Fedarcyk said in a statement.

Prosecutors said that the former head of Bovis' New York office, James Abadie, 55, pleaded guilty earlier on Tuesday to charges of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud.

Abadie faces up to 20 years in prison. An attorney for Abadie, Stephen Kaufman, did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

Bovis agreed to pay $56 million in penalties and victim restitution as part of a deferred prosecution agreement made public on Tuesday.

The agreement showed Bovis had accepted responsibility for the fraud and was cooperating with investigators. As part of the agreement, the company would put in place new internal controls to prevent any future misconduct.

"Lend Lease takes corporate governance very seriously and is committed to the highest levels of ethical standards," Robert McNamara, the chief executive of Lend Lease in the Americas, said in a statement. "We accept responsibility for what happened in the past and have agreed to continue to make restitution to the affected clients."

Bovis agreed to pay $40.5 million in penalties as well as $13.6 million and $2.5 million to victims of different sets of schemes, the deferred prosecution agreement showed.

In one scheme, Bovis lied about employing construction companies owned by women and minorities to qualify for public projects in New York and New Jersey, court documents said.

The Bovis overbilling scheme concerned projects such as the construction of a criminal court in the Bronx, as well as work on the Brooklyn federal courthouse, the very building in which Bovis was charged.

The cases are U.S. v. James Abadie and U.S. v. Lend Lease (US) Construction LMB, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, No. 12-274 and 12-288.

(Reporting By Basil Katz; Editing by Leslie Gevirtz and Steve Orlofsky)
___________________________

And BTEA & RBNY mouthpieces have stated labor was the problem for the past Year. What the hell no one got hurt right? It's only Insurance Money right?

Time for the Courts and their Judges to sentence these folk to the State Pen with the rest of the scum....no more Club Fed under the false claim that its only a financial crime. Time for the double standards to end.

Bovis should be debarred from all NYC work by Mayor Bloomberg for 5-years, no excuses.  
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TUTOR PERINI/HUDSON YARDS PRESS RELEASE

Ted
In reply to this post by RELATED.COM
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TUTOR PERINI/HUDSON YARDS PRESS RELEASE

Ted
Hudson Yards’ Coach grows 25% 
Last Updated: 12:50 AM, May 23, 2012
 
Posted: 11:58 PM, May 21, 2012
 Share on emailShare on facebook More Sharing ServicesMore Print

Steve Cuozzo

REALTY CHECK
 
Related Cos.’ game-changing, first office tower at Hudson Yards will start to rise with this autumn’s harvest moon — and with more of the 1.7 million-square-foot tower spoken for than has been announced.
 
Luxury leather maker Coach has quietly added 150,000 square feet to the previously reported 600,000 feet it’s buying as an office condominium at the rail yard site, sources revealed.
 
Coach also has an expansion option for an additional 100,000 feet, which would make the 46-story tower half full when it opens in 2015. (The project was previously reported as 51 stories — we don’t know where the five other floors went.)
 
SHARP LOOK: New image, looking east, shows the base of Related’s first Hudson Yards tower, newhome for Coach Inc., with the extended High Line Park nearly touching it.
 
Until recently, it would have seemed unthinkable for a glamour brand to consolidate its headquarters west of 10th Avenue. But Coach was a logical name to break the ice — it’s long occupied three nearby addresses on West 33rd and 34th streets, and the yard site soon to be controlled by Related is just a stroll around the block.

Insiders said Related expects to start construction in October following completion of two milestone transactions. The developer led by Stephen M. Ross expects to close on the purchase of a 99-year ground lease with the MTA for $1 billion in September, followed by the sale of office floors to Coach in October.
 
Although terms of the sale to Coach will become public record, they have not yet been disclosed. Related won’t say how much Hudson Yards’ so-called South Tower for Coach will cost other than to estimate its “total development cost” at over $1 billion.

The Related-Coach contract is now down to “paper details — they’ve signed off on the final design and the budget,” a source said.
 
Hudson Yards was in the dreaming and planning stages even before we first reported Related’s talks with Coach in November 2010.
 
Ross himself fueled some uncertainty over the site when he over-enthusiastically said in early 2011 that he expected to have 3 million square feet leased or sold by that year’s end.
 
It didn’t happen. But the Coach tower, at the corner of 10th Avenue and West 30th Street, is itching to rise.
 
The peak-roofed structure designed by Kohn Pedersen Fox is notable in other ways than merely marking the start of the 26-acre Hudson Yards, which is to have 21 million square feet of commercial, residential, retail and public space on the site bounded by 10th and 12th avenues and West 30th and 33rd streets.
 
For one thing, an engineering source said Related is “seriously looking” at building the tower frame of reinforced concrete, not steel — common in construction elsewhere, but rare in New York.
 
Related is said to be studying “efficiencies” including costs and speed. Concrete allows a tower to go up faster, and Coach needs its new home in 2015, when its leases at other buildings expire.
 
Neither a spokesperson for Related nor the broker for Coach, CB Richard Ellis’ Mary Ann Tighe, would comment. Neither would CBRE’s Bob Alexander, who with Rob Stillman is Related’s leasing agent for the tower. However, Alexander was willing to discuss the prospects for the space available there beyond Coach.

When we noted that it would bring a batch of newly minted floors to market just around the time when new space would also be available at the World Trade Center, Alexander said: “The economics of it are as competitive as at any existing class-A Midtown office building. It will be priced roughly the same, and will actually be more economic than the top five availabilities in Midtown” due to the Coach tower’s great efficiencies resulting from its design and amenities.
 
For example, Alexander said, 399 Park Ave. — a 50-year-old building — “is getting $100 a square foot, and we’re not at $100 a foot” if a tenant prefers to lease rather than buy its space.
 
Ross has previously said Related will offer Hudson Yards’ office towers to users “at cost” and make a profit on the apartment buildings to come later.
 
Related and its Hudson Yards financial partner, Oxford Properties Group , have also agreed to pay 30 percent of the estimated $90 million cost to construct the final section of the High Line Park.
 
scuozzo@nypost.com


http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/realestate/commercial/hudson_yards_coach_grows_PLKhLwtxnCUxa0OxbBdbkJ

____________________________________

Who better to build the first major project at Hudson Yards than the NYCDCC Union Carpenters. Time to ink the Contracts boys. Play time is over. The time to build is now!

Contract Negotiations are the only priority and must be settled expeditiousyly.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/realestate/commercial/hudson_yards_coach_grows_PLKhLwtxnCUxa0OxbBdbkJ#ixzz1yFeo5LVj
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TUTOR PERINI/HUDSON YARDS PRESS RELEASE

Ted
In reply to this post by RELATED.COM
RELATED CORPORATE PROFILE

Our History


 In 1972, Stephen Ross founded Related Companies, known then as Related Housing Companies. From the beginning, Mr. Ross understood that only an experienced, multi-skilled team of professionals could drive the success of the complex, integrated real estate company he envisioned.
 
During the 1970’s Related took the lead in financing and developing government assisted multi-family housing for long-term investment. It was a unique concept at the time and still is today. Related soon became the leading financier and developer of affordable housing in the country. By the end of the decade, just eight years later, Related had raised over $40 million in equity to support more than 50 developments with a combined value of over $250 million.
 
In the 1980s, the company rapidly diversified and dramatically expanded the scope of its business and the range of its holdings. New projects included large-scale, market-rate multi-family developments as well as major metropolitan office and commercial properties. At the same time, the financial services arm grew considerably, becoming a major provider of debt and equity capital and managed over 50 private and public funds. The 1980s also brought a name change – from Related Housing Companies to Related Companies – in recognition of the company's substantial growth, new capabilities and expanded services. To take advantage of growing opportunities around the country, Related opened offices in Miami, Los Angeles and later, Chicago.
 
In the early 90’s as a downturn in the real estate market was being experienced throughout the country, Related’s expertise was often sought out by owners of distressed assets, and the company acquired and repositioned many assets in New York and throughout the nation including The Aurora, Tribeca Tower and Tiffany Mews. Following the downturn, Related led an urban and commercial resurgence, forming new partnerships and completing several new residential and mixed-use developments. To better manage its growth, Related was organized into three divisions - Development, Management and Financial Services, each with its own unique mission and opportunities.
 
The Development Division developed and acquired luxury housing, government-assisted housing, retail, commercial and mixed-use properties. The Property Management division provided property management services for residential, commercial and retail space with direct access to real-time information about operating costs and market conditions. The Financial Services division managed capital on behalf of several large institutions including the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio, GM Pension Fund, MEPT and CalPERS. CreditRE and CertRE, ventures with Credit-Suisse, Zurich Financial and Related were also formed in the mid-90s and made or credit-enhanced $2.2 billion in loans on 155 properties representing over 44,000 apartments and nearly 1 million square feet of commercial real estate.
 
In 1998 the company won the coveted bid to develop the prestigious Time Warner Center at Columbus Circle in Manhattan.
 
With the onset of the 21st century, Related has continued its growth through new markets, new partnerships and new capabilities. In addition, the company has continued its development of high-profile luxury residential properties and major mixed-use developments in urban markets.
 
In 2003, Related sold Related Capital to CharterMac, now known as Centerline Capital Group, a full-service real estate finance and investment company that Related took public six years earlier. In February 2006, Related purchased Equinox® Holdings, Inc., further expanding the company’s capabilities into the fitness and lifestyle arena and creating a valuable synergy with the development, sales and management of its luxury residential and mixed-use products.
 
In 2007, Related established partnerships with an elite consortium of investors including Goldman Sachs, MSD Capital, Mubadala Development Company, Kuwait Investment Authority and The Olayan Group, which will help fuel the company’s significant growth potential.
 
In 2008, Related was selected to develop a new 26-acre neighborhood on the west side of New York City, Hudson Yards. That same year, Related was tapped by Deutsche Bank to complete the construction on the $4 billion Cosmopolitan development in Las Vegas.

Today, Related Companies stands as a fully integrated, highly diversified industry leader with expertise in virtually every aspect of development, acquisitions, management, finance and sales, and a commitment to continue to break new ground and reshape the industry. Related’s senior management team averages more than 20 years of experience in the industry, and over 14 years with Related, enabling the company to execute on the most challenging and complex development and financing opportunities.


1234