Artificial Intelligence
Builders Company
Developers/RED Development
RD
RED DevelopmentPhoenix, United States · founded 1995 · 1 active markets
PRIVATE

RED Development builds and repositions commercial real estate, especially mixed-use destinations, retail centers, offices, hotels and entertainment districts. Its projects span the Southwest and Midwest, serving retailers, investors, residents, workers and communities through ground-up development, redevelopment, leasing and asset-management expertise.

Years in business
31
founded 1995
LinkedIn headcount
142
employees, as shown on LinkedIn · size band 51–200
Projects last researched October 11, 2026
Every figure on this card was read out of a document.

Overview

Investor tear sheet

a summary of the tabs that follow · no rating of our own

Company dossier

Legal name
RED Development LLC1
Headquarters
2502 EAST CAMELBACK ROAD, SUITE 2001, Phoenix1, United States
Founded
19951
Entity type
PRIVATE1
Business model
commercial1, mixed use1, masterplan1
Markets
1 market listed
What they build
Office (5 of 5) · Mixed use (2 of 5) · Residential, for rent (2 of 5)
Full dossier in About →

Delivery record

3 date-assessed of 5 projects
Unverified by developer

AI-researched delivery record, not yet confirmed by the developer. Dates may be approximate; original sources are linked.

Completed projects from 2016-10-15 through 2026-10-15, with sufficient delivery-date evidence. Date assessment and developer profile verification do not mean an independent audit of every source. Original source links and available snippets are provided. May not represent the developer’s full portfolio. 0 undated and 0 boundary-uncertain completions are excluded. Delivery exceptions are listed separately under Projects.
Completed projects assessed
5
within the rolling ten-year window
Median delay
+3.5 mo
the middle of 3 scored projects
Average delay
+6.8 mo
the same projects, pulled by the worst
Average time to deliver
2.4 yrs
start to completion, over 3 delivered projects
Worst slip
+16.0 mo
Block 23 · +9.0 to +23.0
2
early or less than 6 months late
6 to 12 months late
0
yellow rows below
Over 12 months late
1
red rows below

Against other developers

3 date-assessed here · 242 developers, 906 date-assessed projects in United States
Median delay
RED Development·242 developers in United States
+3.5 mo vs +4.5 mo
this developer 1.0 mo better
The typical project on each side.
Average delay
RED Development·242 developers in United States
+6.8 mo vs +7.6 mo
this developer 0.8 mo better
Both pulled by their worst few.
On time
RED Development·242 developers in United States
67% vs 55%
this developer 12 pts better
Share of date-assessed projects delivered early or less than 6 months after the original target. Exactly 6 months late is excluded.
Average time to deliver
RED Development·242 developers in United States
2.4 yrs vs 2.9 yrs
this developer 0.5 yrs faster
Start to completion, over 3 delivered here and 746 in the market.
Projects and timelines in Track Record →

Resident experience

4 of 5 buildings rated · scale 1–10

AI research over published reviews and resident comments. Scores are a model’s reading of opinion, not figures stated on a page, and nothing here feeds any number above it. The links under each block are the pages that research says it used. Based on available resident reviews of covered buildings. These are reported experiences, not independent building inspections, and may not represent all residents or properties.

Overall verdict
8.3/ 10
Weighted judgment across build and operations · from 4 of 4 rated buildings
Little structure evidence (2 of 4 buildings) — this rests mainly on whole-building and living reviews.
Structure & systems
7.8/ 10
Fabric, services, waterproofing, envelope · from 2 of 4 rated buildings
Management & living
8.2/ 10
Upkeep, response times, amenities, community · from 4 of 4 rated buildings

Against other developers

4 rated here · 261 developers, 1351 rated buildings in United States
Overall rating
RED Development · 261 other developers in United States
8.3 vs 7.8
this developer 0.5 better
The weighted verdict on each side. From 4 of 4 rated buildings here and 1351 in the market.
Structure & systems
RED Development · 261 other developers in United States
— vs 6.9
Too few buildings with this score here to compare (2 of 4)
Fabric and engineering only — fixed at handover. From 2 of 4 rated buildings here and 570 in the market.
Management & living
RED Development · 261 other developers in United States
8.2 vs 7.4
this developer 0.8 better
Upkeep and response — belongs to whoever runs the building now. From 4 of 4 rated buildings here and 1300 in the market.
The market here is United States: every other developer whose head office is in the same country, because the review platforms residents use, and the service norms they judge against, move together within one. It is not a city, a sector or a price band. Read structure and living together. A developer above the market on structure and below it on living builds well and runs buildings badly, which is a fixable problem and a different one from building badly. Higher ratings are better; differences use the displayed scores rounded to one decimal. Rated buildings only, on both sides, and a structure or living score with no stated basis — no review count and no notes or links — is left out of both.
Ratings by building →

Awards & recognition

All awards →

Risks & source coverage

  • LEGAL Reported November 14, 2019; petition filed November 7, 2019 A former RED Development partner sued RED Development LLC and related entities in Dallas County, alleging breach of contractual information and distribution obligations, fiduciary-duty breaches, and improper use of RED resources for projects benefiting other partners; the petition records allegations rather than adjudicated findings, and RED’s attorney denied the allegations in contemporaneous reporting.
  • FINANCIAL DISTRESS Alleged November 4, 2019; petition filed November 7, 2019 In the same 2019 court petition, the former partner alleged that RED had stopped paying interest on debt secured by The Promenade at Chenal in Little Rock and that foreclosure was imminent; this was an allegation in the pleading, not a confirmed foreclosure finding, and the retrieved sources do not establish the eventual outcome.
  • FINANCIAL DISTRESS December 17, 2019 event; reported January 26, 2020 and March 3, 2025 The Promenade at Chenal (Little Rock, Arkansas), built and operated through RED Development’s Little Rock Development Co. entity, was transferred to a PIMCO affiliate by deed in lieu of foreclosure in December 2019; later reporting records that RED and its partners were removed from ownership, so this is a resolved ownership/financial failure rather than an active RED project.
  • 2 more in Risk & Sources
Record status
active
Company sources
78 source entries across 78 fields
Projects tracked
5 · 5 completed in assessment
All flags and sources →

Track Record

Delivery record

3 date-assessed of 5 projects
Unverified by developer

AI-researched delivery record, not yet confirmed by the developer. Dates may be approximate; original sources are linked.

Completed projects from 2016-10-15 through 2026-10-15, with sufficient delivery-date evidence. Date assessment and developer profile verification do not mean an independent audit of every source. Original source links and available snippets are provided. May not represent the developer’s full portfolio. 0 undated and 0 boundary-uncertain completions are excluded. Delivery exceptions are listed separately under Projects.
Completed projects assessed
5
within the rolling ten-year window
Median delay
+3.5 mo
the middle of 3 scored projects
Average delay
+6.8 mo
the same projects, pulled by the worst
Average time to deliver
2.4 yrs
start to completion, over 3 delivered projects
Worst slip
+16.0 mo
Block 23 · +9.0 to +23.0
2
early or less than 6 months late
6 to 12 months late
0
yellow rows below
Over 12 months late
1
red rows below

Against other developers

3 date-assessed here · 242 developers, 906 date-assessed projects in United States
Median delay
RED Development·242 developers in United States
+3.5 mo vs +4.5 mo
this developer 1.0 mo better
The typical project on each side.
Average delay
RED Development·242 developers in United States
+6.8 mo vs +7.6 mo
this developer 0.8 mo better
Both pulled by their worst few.
On time
RED Development·242 developers in United States
67% vs 55%
this developer 12 pts better
Share of date-assessed projects delivered early or less than 6 months after the original target. Exactly 6 months late is excluded.
Average time to deliver
RED Development·242 developers in United States
2.4 yrs vs 2.9 yrs
this developer 0.5 yrs faster
Start to completion, over 3 delivered here and 746 in the market.
The market here is United States: every other developer whose head office is in the same country, because planning regimes and reporting norms move together within one. It is not a city, a sector or a size band. Read the two delay figures together. A median close to the market with a much better average means no single disaster; the reverse means one project is carrying the record. Time to deliver runs from the earliest start we hold to the completion itself — a construction start where a source gave one, otherwise a sales launch, otherwise the launch year read as its January. A handover the sources place only inside a year is read as that December, so a duration is the widest the record allows rather than the flattering end of it. Only delivered projects dated at both ends count, so it is taken over fewer projects than the delay figures, and a long build is not a fault: a tower is not a villa run. Sourced figures only, both sides, and values taken from documents held on file are excluded here — a developer who shares their records should not score better than one who does not.

Construction start to handover

5 of 5 projects dated · 2 places
Based on covered projects with documented construction or launch dates and available handover dates. Timelines vary by project and may not represent the developer’s full portfolio.
Construction start, or the launchTarget completion (window)Completion or handover, as reportedCurrently statedLaunch year only, no date publishedEarly or ≤6 mo lateOver 6–12 mo lateOver 12 mo lateStalled
Phoenix, United States
Dallas, United States
201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027todayPHOENIX, UNITED STATES+1 moverifiedcompleted, no target published+3.5 moverified+16 moverifiedDALLAS, UNITED STATES+11.5 moestimated
Click a row in the chart to open a project, or a table row below to see its sources. The chart runs wider than the page where the record spans many years — scroll it sideways to follow a project to its handover. Every date we have is drawn. A hollow marker is only a launch year, not a date anyone published. No dates published means we looked and found none; dates not yet checked means we have not looked yet. Handing over is not finished — rows say which. A delay is shown when one source gives the promised date and another gives the real one, however rough: "2019" still counts, and the row shows how wide that is. Projects missing one of the two dates, or with sources that disagree, are left out of the figures. 2 turned out to be about something else — a phase, a neighbour, the wider masterplan — and are marked off-subject.

Building & Livability Ratings

Resident experience

4 of 5 buildings rated · scale 1–10

AI research over published reviews and resident comments. Scores are a model’s reading of opinion, not figures stated on a page, and nothing here feeds any number above it. The links under each block are the pages that research says it used. Based on available resident reviews of covered buildings. These are reported experiences, not independent building inspections, and may not represent all residents or properties.

Overall verdict
8.3/ 10
Weighted judgment across build and operations · from 4 of 4 rated buildings
Little structure evidence (2 of 4 buildings) — this rests mainly on whole-building and living reviews.
Structure & systems
7.8/ 10
Fabric, services, waterproofing, envelope · from 2 of 4 rated buildings
Management & living
8.2/ 10
Upkeep, response times, amenities, community · from 4 of 4 rated buildings

Against other developers

4 rated here · 261 developers, 1351 rated buildings in United States
Overall rating
RED Development · 261 other developers in United States
8.3 vs 7.8
this developer 0.5 better
The weighted verdict on each side. From 4 of 4 rated buildings here and 1351 in the market.
Structure & systems
RED Development · 261 other developers in United States
— vs 6.9
Too few buildings with this score here to compare (2 of 4)
Fabric and engineering only — fixed at handover. From 2 of 4 rated buildings here and 570 in the market.
Management & living
RED Development · 261 other developers in United States
8.2 vs 7.4
this developer 0.8 better
Upkeep and response — belongs to whoever runs the building now. From 4 of 4 rated buildings here and 1300 in the market.
The market here is United States: every other developer whose head office is in the same country, because the review platforms residents use, and the service norms they judge against, move together within one. It is not a city, a sector or a price band. Read structure and living together. A developer above the market on structure and below it on living builds well and runs buildings badly, which is a fixable problem and a different one from building badly. Higher ratings are better; differences use the displayed scores rounded to one decimal. Rated buildings only, on both sides, and a structure or living score with no stated basis — no review count and no notes or links — is left out of both.

By building

4 rated · 1 not rated · scale 1–10
ProjectOverallStructure & systemsManagement & living
The Grove — Medical Office BuildingArcadia, Phoenix
9.1/ 10
—/ 10
9.1/ 10

The largest building-specific review aggregate located is 4.7/5 from 427 reviews, which sets a high converted anchor of 9.15. The score is nudged down for recurring waiting and communication complaints and slightly back up for repeated praise of staff professionalism and care; no structural score is assigned because the published material found did not review physical systems.

+ Caring clinicians+ Professional staff+ Responsive pulmonary team+ Immaculate facility+ Well-organized visits
− Long appointment waits− Unresponsive follow-up− Parking complaint− Dismissive consultation

no notes returned

no links returned

Reviews describe several strong day-to-day experiences: one patient called the facility “immaculate and extremely well-organized,” while another praised “great staff who are also professional and caring.” The negative feedback is operational rather than structural, including a report of waiting “more than an hour” past an appointment and another describing the clinic as “utterly unresponsive.”

The Grove — 4300 Office BuildingArcadia, Phoenix
8.5/ 10
—/ 10
8.5/ 10

Google Reviews/Maps provides the largest review base and sets the level at 4.6/5, converted to 8.8/10. Chamber of Commerce is materially lower at 4.2/5, so the score is moderated toward it; repeated praise adds a small lift, while parking is only a minor complaint. No structural score is assigned because the published reviews contain no substantive evidence about framework, plumbing, HVAC, electrical systems, leaks or waterproofing.

+ well-regarded facility+ good office setup+ good location+ attractive views+ multiple food options
− parking difficulty

no notes returned

no links returned

Reviews describe The Grove as a “very nice facility,” with “great views,” a “great setup,” and “multiple food options all around it.” Parking is the clear operational complaint, appearing in separate reviews as “terrible parking” and “Parking is terrible though”; the available reviews do not substantively assess management response, security, or staff attitude.

Block 23Downtown Phoenix, Phoenix332 units
7.7/ 10
8.0/ 10
7.3/ 10
VeryApt 9.3/10, 8/10, 9/10, 8.7/10, 10/10 · 3 reviews · veryapt.com
Combined from 5 published figures on 1 platform, weighted by review count, adjusted for where resident ratings usually fall and weighted toward the 6.5 midpoint where reviews are few: 7.3.

Apartments.com supplies the largest clearly resident-oriented rating set used as the anchor: 4.7/5 from 60 reviews, converting to 8.5/10 under the requested curve. Yelp is materially more negative but has a smaller base, so it pulls the result down modestly; recurring operational complaints further reduce the score, while repeated praise for staff, maintenance, amenities and location prevents a larger reduction. Structural evidence is positive but mixed, so structure is scored separately at 8.0 and living at 7.7.

+ Fast maintenance+ Thick walls+ Clean amenities+ Well-kept property
− Delayed repairs− Poor dog-wash drainage− Damaged move-in finishes− Broken in-unit Sonos reported
+ Friendly staff+ Responsive leasing team+ Strong amenities+ Resident events+ Walkable downtown location
− Cleaning gaps on upper-floor hallways− Pet-waste complaints− Parking administration issues− Guest overnight-parking charge− Some delayed fixes

Reviews describe generally good physical quality: one resident called the walls “thick,” the amenities “clean and always available,” and maintenance “always so quick.” Counterevidence includes reports that “Things can be broken/not working for a long period of time,” a dog wash that becomes gross because of “poor drainage,” and a move-in with damaged wood, stains and a broken Sonos system.

Residents commonly praise the location, amenities, events and staff: one wrote that the front office team is “phenomenal,” while another described staff as “exceptional” and the 5th-floor pool, BBQ, dog patio and workout area as favorites. The negative accounts focus on operations rather than the concept of the building, including upper-floor hallways that are “never vacuumed or cleaned,” guest overnight-parking charges, and reports that some repairs remain unresolved for long periods.

The Union DallasUptown, Dallas309 units
7.7/ 10
7.7/ 10
RentCafe 4.5/5 · 14 reviews · rentcafe.com
RentCafe publishes 4.5/5 from 14 reviews. Adjusted for where resident ratings usually fall, and weighted toward the 6.5 midpoint (more strongly the fewer the reviews), that gives 7.7.
7.7/ 10
RentCafe 4.5/5 · 14 reviews · rentcafe.com
RentCafe publishes 4.5/5 from 14 reviews. Adjusted for where resident ratings usually fall, and weighted toward the 6.5 midpoint (more strongly the fewer the reviews), that gives 7.7.

Google Reviews/Maps supplies the largest published review base, 4.2/5 from 194 reviews, which converts to 7.6/10 and sets the level. Recurring praise for staff, maintenance, amenities and location is partly offset by repeated reports of soundproofing/noise and parking problems, producing a 7.4 overall score; the structural score is lower because the published physical-condition evidence is mixed, while living quality remains stronger.

+ Well-maintained apartments and amenities+ Spacious, well-designed units+ Clean facilities
− Poor soundproofing− Nighttime outside/restaurant noise− Reported sub-par building materials
+ Responsive maintenance+ Friendly staff+ Secure building and garage+ Clean facilities+ Walkable location and convenient grocery access
− Parking-garage circulation− Exit congestion− Occasional unstaffed service area− Nightlife noise

Most published feedback describes the apartments and amenity areas positively, including “spacious and well-designed” homes and well-maintained pool and workout areas. A negative resident report says the “building materials are sub par” and that there is “zero sound proofing of units,” with restaurant music audible until 2 a.m.; these are resident observations rather than an engineering assessment.

Resident reviews repeatedly praise the staff and maintenance team: one says they “quickly respond to any questions or issues,” while another says minor requests were completed the same day. The main operational negatives are a “poorly designed parking garage” with sharp turns and exit lines, plus an isolated service complaint that no one greeted or served the reviewer; the building’s urban location also brings reported late-night music.

Only buildings that have reached handover are rated. 1 of 5 projects carries no rating: a building still under construction is never asked about, one that has just been handed over may not have been reached yet, and the rest were asked about and no published resident commentary was found. Structure is fixed at handover and stays the developer's; management and living belongs to whoever runs the building now. The overall verdict weights both rather than averaging them. None of this is checked: a rating is what people published about a building, aggregated — it is not evidence, it cannot move a delay figure, and it is not part of the delivery record above.

About

Company dossier

Legal name
RED Development LLC
Headquarters
2502 EAST CAMELBACK ROAD, SUITE 200, Phoenix, United States
85016
Founded
1995
Entity type
PRIVATE
Revenue
USD 175.2 million
2025
Business model
commercial, mixed use, masterplan

Partners

4 partners
Globe Corp.
joint venture

GSQ mixed-use development

City of Goodyear
government partner

GSQ destination around Goodyear City Hall

Macerich
joint venture

Paradise Valley Mall redevelopment

CDK Realty Advisors
funder

CDK provided investment and equity for existing and future RED projects

Sources: name

REGULATOR2023-04-12

City News

City of Goodyear
RED Development revealed today a joint venture with Scottsdale-based Globe Corp. to build GSQ, a new more than 150-acre mixed-use development
value seen: Globe Corp.
https://www.goodyearaz.gov/Home/Components/News/News/12730/

Sources: partner type

REGULATOR2023-04-12

City News

City of Goodyear
RED Development revealed today a joint venture with Scottsdale-based Globe Corp. to build GSQ
value seen: JV_PARTNER
value paraphrased from this source
https://www.goodyearaz.gov/Home/Components/News/News/12730/

Sources: summary

REGULATOR2023-04-12

City News

City of Goodyear
The joint venture will create a much-needed shopping, dining and entertainment destination in Goodyear
value seen: GSQ mixed-use development
held out of the figures · the quote does not carry this value
https://www.goodyearaz.gov/Home/Components/News/News/12730/

Sources: name

REGULATOR2023-04-12

City News

City of Goodyear
The City of Goodyear has also been an extraordinary partner and shares our vision in building a vibrant, upscale destination
value seen: City of Goodyear
https://www.goodyearaz.gov/Home/Components/News/News/12730/

Sources: partner type

REGULATOR2023-04-12

City News

City of Goodyear
The City of Goodyear has also been an extraordinary partner and shares our vision
value seen: GOVERNMENT_PARTNER
value paraphrased from this source
https://www.goodyearaz.gov/Home/Components/News/News/12730/

Sources: summary

REGULATOR2023-04-12

City News

City of Goodyear
RED Development has partnered with the Globe Corporation to develop the area around Goodyear’s City Hall
value seen: GSQ destination around Goodyear City Hall
held out of the figures · the quote does not carry this value
https://www.goodyearaz.gov/Home/Components/News/News/12730/

Sources: name

COMPANY2018-12-14

News Room - RED Development

RED Development
RED Development and Macerich’s Paradise Valley Mall redevelopment plans include an exciting mix of office, multifamily, grocery store, retail shops and other uses.
value seen: Macerich
https://www.reddevelopment.com/news-room/

Sources: partner type

COMPANY2018-12-14

News Room - RED Development

RED Development
RED Development and Macerich’s Paradise Valley Mall redevelopment plans
value seen: JV_PARTNER
value paraphrased from this source
https://www.reddevelopment.com/news-room/

Sources: summary

COMPANY2018-12-14

News Room - RED Development

RED Development
RED Development and Macerich’s Paradise Valley Mall redevelopment plans include an exciting mix of office, multifamily, grocery store, retail shops and other uses.
value seen: Paradise Valley Mall redevelopment
https://www.reddevelopment.com/news-room/

Sources: name

PRESS2008-09-15

RED, CDK Form $200M Partnership

Commercial Property Executive
RED Development L.L.C. has teamed up with CDK Realty Advisors.
value seen: CDK Realty Advisors
https://www.commercialsearch.com/news/red-cdk-form-200m-partnership/

Sources: partner type

PRESS2008-09-15

RED, CDK Form $200M Partnership

Commercial Property Executive
a fund managed by CDK will provide $200 million for investment in certain existing RED projects
value seen: FUNDER
value paraphrased from this source
https://www.commercialsearch.com/news/red-cdk-form-200m-partnership/

Sources: summary

PRESS2008-09-15

RED, CDK Form $200M Partnership

Commercial Property Executive
The fund will also be a 50/50 JV partner with RED in future development projects. For each of these development projects, CDK will provide the equity necessary to obtain construction financing
value seen: CDK provided investment and equity for existing and future RED projects
held out of the figures · the quote does not carry this value
https://www.commercialsearch.com/news/red-cdk-form-200m-partnership/

Registrations & licences

none found
Jurisdiction-agnostic: a DLD number, a Companies House number and a state RERA registration all land in the same table.

Contact

Markets

1 countries
United Statesactive 5 projects tracked

What they build

4 types
Office5 of 5
Mixed use2 of 5
Residential, for rent2 of 5
Retail2 of 5
A project counts once under each type it carries, so the shares add to more than the project count.

Management

Principals & executives

6 names found
ME
Michael Ebert
Michael Ebert is a founding partner who has led RED projects since 1995. His documented track record includes leading the public-private partnership that developed CityScape Phoenix, a 1.2 million-square-foot mixed-use destination.
Current title
Managing Partner, Development
since since 1995
Experience
no career length stated
Companies before
none sourced
Education
not published
Other boards
Chairman of the Board
Known for
nothing tagged

Sources: other boards

OTHERdate not shown in source

Leadership Team | Phoenix Children’s Hospital

Phoenix Children’s Hospital
Michael Ebert Chairman of the Board Managing Partner RED Development
value seen: Chairman of the Board
https://phoenixchildrens.org/about-us/leadership-team

Sources: role type

COMPANYdate not shown in source

Who We Are - RED Development

RED Development
founding partner
value seen: FOUNDER
value paraphrased from this source
https://www.reddevelopment.com/who-we-are/

Sources: since

OTHERdate not shown in source

Michael Ebert | ULI Knowledge Finder

Urban Land Institute · carried by knowledge.uli.org
As a founding partner of RED Development, Mike Ebert has shaped the company’s successful development area in projects across the country since 1995.
value seen: since 1995
https://knowledge.uli.org/people/e/m/michael-ebert

Sources: summary

COMPANYdate not shown in source

Who We Are - RED Development

RED Development
As a founding partner, Ebert has shaped the company’s ongoing success leading projects since 1995. Ebert’s comprehensive industry expertise gives RED a competitive advantage in building a high-profile and noteworthy pipeline of projects.
value seen: Michael Ebert is a founding partner who has led RED projects since 1995. His documented track record includes leading the public-private partnership that developed CityScape Phoenix, a 1.2 million-square-foot mixed-use destination.
value paraphrased from this source
https://www.reddevelopment.com/who-we-are/

Sources: title

COMPANYdate not shown in source

Who We Are - RED Development

RED Development
MICHAEL EBERT MANAGING PARTNER, DEVELOPMENT
value seen: Managing Partner, Development
https://www.reddevelopment.com/who-we-are/
SR
Scott Rehorn
Scott Rehorn is a founding partner who leads RED’s leasing activity and national deal-making with major retail tenants. Independent alumni material identifies him as a partner at RED Development and documents civic and university leadership.
Current title
Managing Partner, Leasing
Experience
no career length stated
Companies before
none sourced
Education
not published
Other boards
Director to 2031
Known for
nothing tagged

Sources: other boards

OTHERdate not shown in source

Board Of Directors - KU Alumni

KU Alumni
Director to 2031
value seen: Director to 2031
https://www.kualumni.org/board-of-directors/

Sources: role type

COMPANYdate not shown in source

Who We Are - RED Development

RED Development
founding partner
value seen: FOUNDER
value paraphrased from this source
https://www.reddevelopment.com/who-we-are/

Sources: summary

COMPANYdate not shown in source

Who We Are - RED Development

RED Development
As a founding partner, Rehorn has built key relationships with national and regional retail tenants for over 25 years. He leads the company’s leasing activity, national deal making with Apple, lululemon, SCHEELS, the property management division and more.
value seen: Scott Rehorn is a founding partner who leads RED’s leasing activity and national deal-making with major retail tenants. Independent alumni material identifies him as a partner at RED Development and documents civic and university leadership.
held out of the figures · the quote does not carry this value
value paraphrased from this source
https://www.reddevelopment.com/who-we-are/

Sources: title

COMPANYdate not shown in source

Who We Are - RED Development

RED Development
SCOTT REHORN MANAGING PARTNER, LEASING
value seen: Managing Partner, Leasing
https://www.reddevelopment.com/who-we-are/
BH
Brett Heron
Brett Heron oversees RED’s Phoenix mixed-use development and capital-markets activity. A management biography records prior work at Evergreen Development, a 2009 arrival at RED, and earlier RED finance roles.
Current title
Managing Director
Experience
no career length stated
Companies before
Evergreen Development
Education
University of Arizona – Eller College of ManagementBachelor of Science in Business Administration, Finance, Accounting and Entrepreneurship
Other boards
none sourced
Known for
nothing tagged

Sources: degree

DIRECTORYdate not shown in source

Brett Heron Bio – Red Development Managing Director

The Official Board
In 1994, Brett Heron vollendete einen Bachelor of Science in Business Administration, Finance, Accounting and Entrepreneurship von dem University of Arizona - Eller College of Management.
value seen: Bachelor of Science in Business Administration, Finance, Accounting and Entrepreneurship
https://www.theofficialboard.de/biografie/brett-heron-749e4

Sources: institution

DIRECTORYdate not shown in source

Brett Heron Bio – Red Development Managing Director

The Official Board
In 1994, Brett Heron vollendete einen Bachelor of Science in Business Administration, Finance, Accounting and Entrepreneurship von dem University of Arizona - Eller College of Management.
value seen: University of Arizona - Eller College of Management
https://www.theofficialboard.de/biografie/brett-heron-749e4

Sources: previous companies

DIRECTORYdate not shown in source

Brett Heron Bio – Red Development Managing Director

The Official Board
Brett arbeitete als Managing Principal bei Evergreen Development.
value seen: Evergreen Development
https://www.theofficialboard.de/biografie/brett-heron-749e4

Sources: role type

COMPANYdate not shown in source

Who We Are - RED Development

RED Development
Managing Director
value seen: MANAGING_DIRECTOR
value paraphrased from this source
https://www.reddevelopment.com/who-we-are/

Sources: since

DIRECTORYdate not shown in source

Brett Heron Bio – Red Development Managing Director

The Official Board
Brett Heron kam zu Red Development in 2009.
value seen: 2009
held out of the figures · the value did not fit the record it was filed under
https://www.theofficialboard.de/biografie/brett-heron-749e4

Sources: summary

COMPANYdate not shown in source

Who We Are - RED Development

RED Development
Heron’s 25+ years in real estate has spanned acquisitions, development, financing, joint ventures and dispositions. He currently oversees the development and capital markets activity for RED’s Phoenix mixed-use development projects.
value seen: Brett Heron oversees RED’s Phoenix mixed-use development and capital-markets activity. A management biography records prior work at Evergreen Development, a 2009 arrival at RED, and earlier RED finance roles.
held out of the figures · the quote does not carry this value
value paraphrased from this source
https://www.reddevelopment.com/who-we-are/

Sources: title

COMPANYdate not shown in source

Who We Are - RED Development

RED Development
BRETT HERON MANAGING DIRECTOR
value seen: Managing Director
https://www.reddevelopment.com/who-we-are/
MK
Mike Kallner
Mike Kallner leads RED’s national leasing strategy across its mixed-use portfolio. Reporting on RED’s Jefferson Pointe repurchase and the Paradise Valley redevelopment quotes him on asset ownership, leasing priorities and tenant strategy.
Current title
Executive Vice President, Leasing & Marketing
Experience
no career length stated
Companies before
none sourced
Education
not published
Other boards
none sourced
Known for
nothing tagged

Sources: role type

COMPANYdate not shown in source

Who We Are - RED Development

RED Development
Executive Vice President, Leasing & Marketing
value seen: DEPARTMENT_HEAD
value paraphrased from this source
https://www.reddevelopment.com/who-we-are/

Sources: summary

COMPANYdate not shown in source

Who We Are - RED Development

RED Development
Kallner brings over 25 years of experience in retail and business development and real estate finance. He currently focuses his efforts leading the team’s national strategy in leasing mixed-use developments across the portfolio.
value seen: Mike Kallner leads RED’s national leasing strategy across its mixed-use portfolio. Reporting on RED’s Jefferson Pointe repurchase and the Paradise Valley redevelopment quotes him on asset ownership, leasing priorities and tenant strategy.
held out of the figures · the quote does not carry this value
value paraphrased from this source
https://www.reddevelopment.com/who-we-are/

Sources: title

COMPANYdate not shown in source

Who We Are - RED Development

RED Development
MIKE KALLNER EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, LEASING & MARKETING
value seen: Executive Vice President, Leasing & Marketing
https://www.reddevelopment.com/who-we-are/
AM
Andy Mertz
Andy Mertz leads RED’s corporate financial operations and provides strategic leadership to accounting, asset management and human resources. The available current company profile documents this scope, but does not state his start date, education or prior employers.
Current title
Executive Vice President, Corporate Finance
Experience
no career length stated
Companies before
none sourced
Education
not published
Other boards
none sourced
Known for
nothing tagged

Sources: role type

COMPANYdate not shown in source

Who We Are - RED Development

RED Development
Executive Vice President, Corporate Finance
value seen: DEPARTMENT_HEAD
value paraphrased from this source
https://www.reddevelopment.com/who-we-are/

Sources: summary

COMPANYdate not shown in source

Who We Are - RED Development

RED Development
Mertz leads the company’s corporate financial operations and provides strategic leadership to accounting, asset management, and human resources in partnership with function leaders.
value seen: Andy Mertz leads RED’s corporate financial operations and provides strategic leadership to accounting, asset management and human resources. The available current company profile documents this scope, but does not state his start date, education or prior employers.
held out of the figures · the quote does not carry this value
value paraphrased from this source
https://www.reddevelopment.com/who-we-are/

Sources: title

COMPANYdate not shown in source

Who We Are - RED Development

RED Development
ANDY MERTZ EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, CORPORATE FINANCE
value seen: Executive Vice President, Corporate Finance
https://www.reddevelopment.com/who-we-are/
JM
Jeff Moloznik
Jeff Moloznik leads financing, entitlements, tenant relations, construction coordination, community outreach and government relations for RED. Independent profiles document his work on CityScape and other downtown Phoenix projects, and his September 2005 entry to RED as a development manager.
Current title
Senior Vice President, Development
since September 2005
Experience
no career length stated
Companies before
none sourced
Education
University of Wisconsin, MadisonBachelor of Science
Other boards
Board of Special Olympics Arizona
Known for
nothing tagged

Sources: degree

OTHERdate not shown in source

Jeff Moloznik - Valley Partnership

Valley Partnership
Jeff earned a Bachelor of Science from the University of Wisconsin, Madison.
value seen: Bachelor of Science
https://www.valleypartnership.org/page/BioJM/Jeff-Moloznik.htm

Sources: institution

OTHERdate not shown in source

Jeff Moloznik - Valley Partnership

Valley Partnership
Jeff earned a Bachelor of Science from the University of Wisconsin, Madison.
value seen: University of Wisconsin, Madison
https://www.valleypartnership.org/page/BioJM/Jeff-Moloznik.htm

Sources: other boards

OTHERdate not shown in source

Jeff Moloznik - Valley Partnership

Valley Partnership
Jeff currently serves on the Board of Special Olympics Arizona, Valley Partnership, the Downtown Phoenix Partnership, the City of Phoenix Tourism and Hospitality Board, and the Phoenix Parks Foundation Board of Directors.
value seen: Board of Special Olympics Arizona
https://www.valleypartnership.org/page/BioJM/Jeff-Moloznik.htm

Sources: role type

COMPANYdate not shown in source

Who We Are - RED Development

RED Development
Senior Vice President, Development
value seen: HEAD_OF_DEVELOPMENT
value paraphrased from this source
https://www.reddevelopment.com/who-we-are/

Sources: since

PRESSdate not shown in source

Meet Jeff Moloznik, A Phoenix Community Alliance "City-Shaper"

Downtown Phoenix · carried by dtphx.org
One thing led to another, and I was hired in September 2005 to be a development manager, the first rung on the ladder in project management.
value seen: September 2005
https://dtphx.org/post/meet-jeff-moloznik-a-phoenix-community-alliance-city-shaper-

Sources: summary

COMPANYdate not shown in source

Who We Are - RED Development

RED Development
Moloznik leads public and private financing, entitlements, tenant relations, construction coordination, community outreach and government relations. His commitment to the community includes multiple board leadership positions and neighborhood groups.
value seen: Jeff Moloznik leads financing, entitlements, tenant relations, construction coordination, community outreach and government relations for RED. Independent profiles document his work on CityScape and other downtown Phoenix projects, and his September 2005 entry to RED as a development manager.
held out of the figures · the quote does not carry this value
value paraphrased from this source
https://www.reddevelopment.com/who-we-are/

Sources: title

COMPANYdate not shown in source

Who We Are - RED Development

RED Development
JEFF MOLOZNIK SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, DEVELOPMENT
value seen: Senior Vice President, Development
https://www.reddevelopment.com/who-we-are/

Projects

Assessment coverage

Completed projects: 2016-10-15 through 2026-10-15. Initial research is capped at 10 completed projects and a separate delivery-risk search capped at 7 findings. Risk findings are not project assessment counts. Absence is not proof of a complete portfolio or no failures. Month-level dates overlapping a boundary are excluded from figures.

0 undated completions and 0 boundary-uncertain completions are retained but excluded from figures.

Stalled, cancelled & overdue projects

0 evidenced cases
The capped delivery-risk search ran; no project-level exception cases are recorded here. Risk findings are listed under Risks and are separate from assessed projects. This does not establish that the developer has no delivery failures.

Completed projects

5 projects
ProjectLocationTypeUnitsFloorsAreaCostPayment planLaunchedConstruction startOriginal targetHandoverDelayConfidenceStatus
Fender Co-Headquarters at PVPhoenix, United States
office—377,505 sq ft——2024March 19, 2024Sep 2025 – Nov 2025Oct 2025 – Dec 2025+1.0 mo
(−1.0 to +3.0)
sourcedcompleted
The Grove — Medical Office BuildingPhoenix, United States
Arcadia
office——70,000 sq ft——2021June 2021—Feb 2023—not scorablecompleted
The Grove — 4300 Office BuildingPhoenix, United States
Arcadia
office—4180,000 sq ft——2021June 23, 2021Jan 2022 – Dec 2022Oct 2022+3.5 mo
(−2.0 to +9.0)
sourcedcompleted
Block 23Phoenix, United States
Downtown Phoenix
mixed use, office, residential for rent, retail3321————2016April of 2016Jan 2018 – Dec 2018Sep 2019 – Dec 2019+16.0 mo
(+9.0 to +23.0)
sourcedcompleted
The Union DallasDallas, United States
Uptown
mixed use, office, residential for rent, retail3091—800,000 sq ft——2016April 20, 2016Jan 2018 – Dec 2018Jun 2019+11.5 mo
(+6.0 to +17.0)
estimatedcompleted
Click any row for the sources behind it. Cost basis matters: an estimated cost, a construction loan and a sale price are different numbers. Each row states which one it is, so they are never averaged together.

Awards

Awards & recognition

5 found
PROJECT AWARD Winner March 19, 2026 (award event; reported May 3, 2026)
Office Project of the Year — 2026 RED Awards · Fender Co-Headquarters
The project won Office Project of the Year; the published winners list names RED Development as developer.
PROJECT AWARD Winner 2025 RED Awards; reported October 8, 2025
Office Interiors Project of the Year — 2025 RED Awards · Alliance Bank Executive Offices
The project won Office Interiors Project of the Year; the winners list names RED Development as developer.
PROJECT AWARD Winner 2024 RED Awards; reported February 27, 2025
Office Interiors Project of the Year — 2024 RED Awards · Clayco Regional Headquarters
The project won Office Interiors Project of the Year; the winners list names RED Development as developer.
PROJECT AWARD Winner 2023 RED Awards; reported March 26, 2023
Office Project of the Year (more than 100,000 SF) — 2023 RED Awards · The Grove
The Grove won the Office Project of the Year category for projects over 100,000 square feet; the winners list names RED Development as developer.
COMPANY AWARD Winner February 27, 2013 (award event; reported February 28, 2013)
Developer of the Year — 2013 RED Awards
RED Development was named Developer of the Year at the eighth annual RED Awards, recognizing notable Arizona commercial real-estate projects and construction teams.

Risks

Risk flags

5 found
LEGAL Reported November 14, 2019; petition filed November 7, 2019
A former RED Development partner sued RED Development LLC and related entities in Dallas County, alleging breach of contractual information and distribution obligations, fiduciary-duty breaches, and improper use of RED resources for projects benefiting other partners; the petition records allegations rather than adjudicated findings, and RED’s attorney denied the allegations in contemporaneous reporting.
FINANCIAL DISTRESS Alleged November 4, 2019; petition filed November 7, 2019
In the same 2019 court petition, the former partner alleged that RED had stopped paying interest on debt secured by The Promenade at Chenal in Little Rock and that foreclosure was imminent; this was an allegation in the pleading, not a confirmed foreclosure finding, and the retrieved sources do not establish the eventual outcome.
FINANCIAL DISTRESS December 17, 2019 event; reported January 26, 2020 and March 3, 2025
The Promenade at Chenal (Little Rock, Arkansas), built and operated through RED Development’s Little Rock Development Co. entity, was transferred to a PIMCO affiliate by deed in lieu of foreclosure in December 2019; later reporting records that RED and its partners were removed from ownership, so this is a resolved ownership/financial failure rather than an active RED project.
PROJECT CANCELLED 2015 approval deadline; status reported April 11, 2017
Eagle River Station near Eagle, Colorado was not proceeded with by RED Development under its voter-approved plan: the required three-year deadline to submit a final plat expired in 2015, and RED allowed the town approval to lapse; any return would require a new review process.
FINANCIAL DISTRESS Foreclosure notice reported January 31, 2012; older unresolved material failure
The Outlets at Legends at Sparks Marina, Nevada—built by RED Development—entered a documented lender default involving $141 million of missed private-loan payments and a foreclosure notice; RED publicly characterized the action as part of a planned refinancing effort, so the source establishes serious financial distress but not abandonment or a completed foreclosure.

Record status

active
Coverageactive
Tracked sinceOctober 10, 2026
Last checkedOctober 11, 2026 this month
Profile last researchedOctober 11, 2026
Claim
Work for this company? Claiming lets you correct the record with sources and get alerts when it changes.
For informational purposes only. This information is not investment, financial or credit advice and should not be relied on for investment, lending or credit decisions. Records may be incomplete or outdated. Verify information independently and seek qualified advice before making a decision.