Tag Archives: Corporate suites

Is there a conflict of interest?

### ODT Online Wed, 21 Sep 2011
Conflict of interest claim denied
By David Loughrey
Anti-stadium campaigner Bev Butler has again taken aim at the people who worked to build the Forsyth Barr Stadium, but this time she has got no backing from a former ally, now mayor, Dave Cull. Ms Butler’s latest target is Dunedin City Holdings Ltd (DCHL) director Mike Coburn, who has also worked on the project delivery team that made sure the stadium was built. She claimed there was a conflict of interest in the role, and that two invoices she unearthed to Mr Coburn’s company Ruboc Holdings for “casual corporate suite rental” last year for the All Blacks v Wales game, showed about $6000 that should not have been paid for by ratepayers.
Read more

****

This morning, Bev Butler emailed the following notes and information to What if? Dunedin…

She says:
• Attached are 23 Ruboc Holdings invoices.
• Below is the covering note with [Mike] Coburn’s explanation.
• My overall comment: “The public will be shocked at the pure unadulterated greed.”
• My comment on the covering note by Coburn is “Pathetic”.

Notes:
DCHL director Mike Coburn’s company, Ruboc Holdings Ltd, invoiced the Carisbrook Stadium Trust (CST), then paid for by DCC, for casual lease of a corporate box for the All Blacks vs Wales test game last year.

The invoice was for $4,429.69 (incl GST). This was approved by Malcolm Farry, CST chairman. Note also the invoice is dated 12 May 2010 and payment made a month in advance of the rugby All Blacks test.

Another invoice was for Additional Test tickets $2,409.69. From the invoices this was a day out for the Project Delivery Team and ……..

Total of all Ruboc invoices: $83,370.04 (incl GST)

Coburn started claiming fees from 9 March 2009. This is before the Hawkins contract was signed on 27 April 2009. He was right in there from the start.

Some invoices claim expenses for meals, taxis, phone, parking and accommodation. Not sure where the accommodation would fit in as Coburn lives in Dunedin and there are no claims for travel elsewhere.

Mike Coburn is the sole director and sole shareholder of Ruboc Holdings Ltd. He is the company.

Mike Coburn was being paid $1000 per day as Project Delivery Team member to push the stadium construction further while failing in his duty as a director of DCHL to inform DCC that DCHL was unable to supply dividends to pay off the stadium debt.

Mike Coburn invoiced the CST $4,429.69 for the one day casual hire of his corporate box so that the Project Delivery Team could watch the All Blacks vs Wales test match.

This invoice was approved by Malcolm Farry then sent to DCC for payment under the guise of construction cost.

Mike Coburn also invoiced CST $2,409.69 for extra Test tickets for the same All Blacks vs Wales game.

[Malcolm] Farry then claimed this as a construction cost of the stadium.

Did Coburn also claim $1000 payment for attending the test match day as well because he was ‘working’?

Who were the other tickets bought for?
Who are the members of the Project Delivery Team?
Are these members all being paid $1000 per day and did they all get paid $1000 to attend the rugby as well as their tickets paid for?
Do any of these other members also have conflicts of interest?

Covering note from DCC:
Dear Bev
As previously indicated, here is the covering note for the release of Ruboc invoice information.

“Please find attached the information requested regarding Ruboc Holdings Ltd invoices. All the invoices held by the Council have been released. The invoices, in the main, cover Ruboc Holding’s[sic] time in respect of the many meetings attended relevant to the delivery of the stadium project including those with the PDT, DCC committees, Council meetings, University, DVML and Hawkins.

“Two invoices relate to the rental of a suite at Carisbrook. The hosting of contractors at Carisbrook was an exercise by the PDT to strengthen the working relationship primarily between the main contractor Hawkins, subcontractors and Arrow International Ltd at a time when they were facing significant challenges to reduce costs to remain within budget. Initially there was only sufficient interest to fill part part the suite and Ruboc committed to the balance but as word got around, enthusiasm grew as did the numbers, and Ruboc had to forgo the balance, hence two invoices.

“I trust this answers your enquiry.”

Sandy [Graham]
[DCC governance manager]

The invoices:
Ruboc Holdings – 00000041 – $900
Ruboc Holdings – 00000047 – $2,025
Ruboc Holdings – 00000053 – $900
Ruboc Holdings – 00000065 – $1,800

Ruboc Holdings – 00000069 – $1,487.50
Ruboc Holdings – 00000075- $5,580
Ruboc Holdings – 00000112 – $2,180.50
Ruboc Holdings – 00000125 – $2,197.50

Ruboc Holdings – 00000130- $2,120
Ruboc Holdings – 00000133 – $3,937.50
Ruboc Holdings – 00000138 – $3,583.50
Ruboc Holdings – 00000148 – $2,141.95

Ruboc Holdings – 00000150 – $4,459.25
Ruboc Holdings – 00000167 – $3,240
Ruboc Holdings – 00000180 – $3,330
Ruboc Holdings – 00000190 – $4,680

Ruboc Holdings – 00000198 – $4,950
Ruboc Holdings – 00000213 – $4,275
Ruboc Holdings – 00000221 – $2,475
Ruboc Holdings – 00000234 – $4,725

Ruboc Holdings – 00000246 – $5,625
Ruboc Holdings – 00000253 – $2,700
Ruboc Holdings – 00000261 – $4,050

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

15 Comments

Filed under Construction, CST, DCC, DCHL, Economics, People, Politics, Project management, Site, Sport, Stadiums

Urban Outfitters Corporate Campus / Meyer, Scherer & Rockcastle

Updated post 18.11.14 at 7:02 p.m.

Urban Outfitters urbn banner [urbn.com]

Innovation Incubator
When profits depend on employees’ ability to create cutting-edge designs, a business simply can’t survive unless its workplace is an incubator for innovation: Urban Outfitters “lives and dies in creativity”. –Richard Hayne

After relocating to an abandoned naval yard, Urban Outfitters, the retro-chic retailer sees revenue skyrocket—and once skeptical employees have embraced the gritty, but inspiring space.

Amenities such as a gym, yoga studio, dog park, and farmers’ market further add to the lively and informal atmosphere. The exterior landscaping was designed by Julie Bargmann’s D.I.R.T. studio, known for turning derelict industrial sites into vibrant public spaces.

### hq.construction.com 1 December 2009
Urban Outfitters’ Edgy Adventure
By Jenna M. McKnight and Sebastian Howard
PHILADELPHIA—Richard Hayne, chairman and president of Urban Outfitters, met stiff resistance when he initially announced plans to move his company’s headquarters from traditional high-rise offices to five dilapidated buildings in the decommissioned Philadelphia Navy Yard. “I wouldn’t say it was a mutiny,” Hayne says, recalling his colleagues’ reactions. “But there were definitely some blank stares and ‘are you kiddings?’”
The retailing giant, which sold nearly $2 billion worth of its clothing and apartment wares in 2008, for many years had been spread among six buildings in downtown Philadelphia. This physical separation was “horrible”, Hayne says, because each department was “unsure about what the other was doing”.
Increasingly, Hayne realised that to maximise performance his company needed a unified campus — and a generic office park was out of the question given the spirit and reputation of Urban Outfitters.
Founded in 1970, the retailer offers hip merchandise with a vintage twist aimed at trendy, young buyers. Most of its retail brands, which include Urban Outfitters, Anthropologie, and Free People, are housed in renovated old buildings with double-height ceilings and exposed brick, concrete and timber.
So Hayne began looking for a setting for his new corporate home that would mirror the aesthetic sensibility of his stores, and in 2004, he found what he judged to be a near-perfect spot: the naval shipyard, which the Defense Department shuttered in 1995.
Read more

Urban Outfitters Corporate Campus, Philadelphia’s Navy Yard (2006) - Lara Swimmer PhotographyConversion of Philadelphia’s Navy Yard (2006). Photo: Lara Swimmer

### uli.org [Urban Land Institute]
Awards for Excellence: 2007 Winner
Urban Outfitters Corporate Campus
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

The Philadelphia Navy Yard, which encompasses more than 1,000 acres (405 ha), 2,000 buildings, and 2.5 miles (4 km) of riverfront, was decommissioned in 1996. In 2000, ownership was transferred to the Philadelphia Authority of Industrial Development (PAID), and the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation (PIDC) began developing the property on behalf of PAID and the city. The Navy Yard is rapidly becoming a dynamic and viable new business location, as evidenced by the Urban Outfitters corporate office campus, which was completed and opened in October 2006.
Read more

Meyer Scherer & Rockcastle- Urban Outfitters HeadquartersUrban Outfitters’ pioneering move has positively impacted the entire Navy Yard. A new creative district, with top advertising agencies, graphic designers, and photographers, is growing around the retailer. New coffee shops and restaurants serve workers and visitors alike. More than 4,000 jobs have been created in the Yard since the company moved.
worldarchitecturenews.com (Thursday 29 Oct 2009)

UrbanOutfitters 2 - Lara Swimmer [archdaily.com]UrbanOutfitters 1 - Lara Swimmer [archdaily.com]UrbanOutfitters 3 - Lara Swimmer [archdaily.com]More photographs of the heritage dock yard complex by Lara Swimmer at archdaily.com (1 December 2010).

█ Website: urbanoutfittersinc.com

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

1 Comment

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, Design, Economics, Geography, Heritage, Innovation, Inspiration, Media, Name, People, Project management, Property, Site, Town planning, Urban design