Good morning, and welcome to the Boston Properties First Quarter Earnings Call. This call is being recorded. [Operator Instructions] At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Ms. Arista Joyner, Investor Relations Manager for Boston Properties. Please go ahead.

Good morning, and welcome to Boston Properties first quarter earnings conference call. The press release and supplemental package were distributed last night, as well as furnished on Form 8-K. In the supplemental package, the company has reconciled all non-GAAP financial measures to the most directly comparable GAAP measure in accordance with Reg G requirements. If you did not receive a copy, these documents are available in the Investor Relations section of our website at www.bostonproperties.com. An audio webcast of this call will be available for 12 months in the Investor Relations section of our website. At this time, we would like to inform you that certain statements made during this conference call, which are not historical, may constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Although Boston Properties believes the expectations reflected in any forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions, it can give no assurance that its expectations will be attained. Factors and risks that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by forward-looking statements were detailed in Tuesday's press release and, from time to time, in the company's filings with the SEC. The company does not undertake a duty to update any forward-looking statement. Having said that, I'd like to welcome Mort Zuckerman, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer; Doug Linde, President; and Mike LaBelle, Chief Financial Officer. Also during the question-and-answer portion of our call, our regional management team will be available to answer questions as well. I would now like to turn the call over to Mort Zuckerman for his formal remarks.

Good morning, everybody. We continue to find that our basic strategy, I guess, is the only way to put it, is holding up very well in what we think are fairly weak economic times in a macro sense. And we continue to believe that we'll continue to do well in this environment, simply because the quality of the buildings and the quality of the locations in the markets that we are in are doing relatively better than the overall economy. And we suspect that this is going to continue so we're actually feeling reasonably optimistic about our business. But I have to say, I have been relatively bearish about the economy, and I continue to be that way because I think the overall macro numbers are quite weak, especially the employment numbers. The employment numbers in the first 3 months of this year were very weak because, let me put it this way, they looked better than they really were because of the way the government counts these numbers when they're so called, seasonally adjusted. Well, the fact that we have the warmest pretty months since 1895, an average of 6 degrees per day warmer than and any period going back to 1895. And this means that we basically saved a lot of jobs. People are able to get to work, certain kinds of work like construction was able to continue in the warmer weather, et cetera. The same thing is true in agriculture. So we're in a situation where the economy overall, remains weak. Nevertheless, the areas in which we service, tenants, by and large have continued to be well, relatively well. Certainly, if you look at the markets we are in, they are all still doing fairly well in terms of the kind of space that we offer…

Thanks, Mort. Good morning, everybody. So when I start to think about the first quarter, when you look at the macro data and you looked at what was going on with the announcement of the LTRO in Europe, I think everyone's sort of had a perspective that things were going to do -- be pretty good. It's not robust in the first quarter. I think the data around the real estate markets really was sort of out of sync with those expectations. There really wasn't the same pattern. The way we would describe things are that the real estate markets have been okay. They haven't been good, but they haven't been bad either. One of the brokers in New York City that we spent a lot of time with said, if you were to pick a color for the market, he would use the color gray for midtown. In other words, there's not much upper pricing on rents, but the pessimists aren't winning the day either. It's just sort of a status quo. There's still some Redskin. There's uncertainty with regards to what's happening with the large financial institutions as we're seeing on a daily basis, and no one's really making bold moves, but as you've heard from some of the previous calls you hear from us today, some of the larger tenants in the market are making decisions because they have lease expirations or they want to get on with life. So as we think about our portfolio, for the most part we are in what I would refer to as a lease expiration driven market. But there are some pockets of growth and there are companies that are looking for some additional space, and they are impacting our portfolio and we'll talk about these in a couple of…

Great. Thanks, Doug. Good morning, everybody. As Doug mentioned, we closed the acquisition of 100 Federal Street in Boston this quarter. And with no tenant [ph] on the building, the investor represents a highly accretive use for $615 million of our cash. We also repaid a significant amount of outstanding debt during the quarter including $576 million of our exchangeable notes that were redeemable and $140 million expiring mortgage loan on Bay Colony Corporate Center. So our cash at quarter-end is down after all those uses at $590 million. We also have virtually our full $750 million line of credit available. And after paying off one more loan, which is a $65 million loan on One Freedom Square that we paid off in April, we now have no remaining debt maturities in 2012. We do have our development pipeline to fund, which totals $1.8 billion. The pipeline has about $600 million remaining to spend over the next 3 years, net of capitalized interest, and we project $250 million of this will be sent over the last 3 quarters of 2012. So although our liquidity is more than sufficient to manage our near-term obligations, we will continue to evaluate supplementing it as we look at the prospective investment landscape and our early 2013 debt maturities. As we noted in our press release, we've issued approximately 1.5 million shares of common stock, raising $153 million of equity using our at the market equity program to maintain our well-balanced capital structure in conjunction with the 100 Federal Street acquisition. We're also consistently evaluating the debt market, particularly given the current rate environment. Our 10-year bonds are currently trading at spreads in the high 100s. And we can raise 10-year debt today below 4%. The banks are also actively looking to fund unsecured term…

And your first question comes from the line of Jordan Sadler.

I just wanted to dig in to 100 Federal real quickly. Is it -- was this transaction more of a function of availability and cost of capital right now? And -- or maybe could you just discuss sort of the long-term expected IRR and how it fits into sort of BXP strategy? And then the reason I asked is the strategy has been to -- on sort of the best buildings and the best markets. And while this is obviously a very high quality building and a good market, it seems like Cambridge and the Back Bay have been the stronger markets in Boston, and you already have quite a bit of a concentration there?

Sure. So I want to answer you first -- the first comment to your question, which is absolutely not. This was not a question of well, we have the money and therefore we can just buy this building. That's about the farthest thing from our thinking that you could possibly imagine. 100 Federal Street is a building that we identified 5 years ago when we started looking at, what are the best buildings in Boston that we would want to own if they were available, and there were 4 or 5 other buildings in the downtown submarket that we would consider owning because we think they are terrific long-term buildings that are very attractive to tenants and may or may not have been terribly well maintained or marketed over the past decade, but that are long-term winners for the city of Boston. The transaction came about because we were aware of the right that the tenant had to the right to first offer and we were also aware that the institution at the bank was looking to potentially raise capital sell their assets and get out of the real estate business. And they are not a good owner, a third-party owner of real estate. I think they would acknowledge that themselves. We look at the deal as a good cash on cash return at an exceedingly low basis per square foot with opportunities to enhance the cash flow characters of the building both from rolling rents up, taking the space back from the bank over time as the bank sort of rethinks how it wants to use its office space in the city of Boston, changing the profile of the ground floor in the way that the pedestrian and the area of the buildings around it sort of react to…

It sounds like it. Mort, can I get your perspective on New York a little bit? It seems Doug characterized -- or a broker characterized it as gray. There seems to be some inertia among the larger tenants in the market, and even with yourselves with Citi, it wouldn't get the terms on it, maybe it will come later in the call, but it seems like the large tenants seem to be staying put at least in the last 3 to 6 months. Maybe your sort of comments around that?

Well, I'm not going to try and oversell this market. But I will tell you that we are building a building in New York City and we are talking to 3 or 4 major tenants in addition to the one that we already have signed. So there is a fair amount of activity in terms of large tenants looking for new space and looking for larger space. So again, I think we are in a situation where there's a lot of nervousness in the business community for all kinds of reasons, some of which we all are familiar with. But still, New York is still doing very well, very well. The vacancy pretty much is holding up in the kinds of space that we are in. The occupancy is getting a little bit better. The vacancies are very small. And we are frankly quite bullish with the right buildings for the right building sites. We are absolutely in the market because we think this is going to continue to be a very strong market. The overall economy here in New York, of course, is dominated not just by the area of the city that we are in, which is sort of the Upper East Side, if I could put it that way. But also, of course, what is in the southern part of the city, what’s south of 23rd Street, we have just had a huge influx of a lot of the activities in the high-tech world. It's very, very strong. Rents have gone up dramatically in that part of the city and we are looking at it and so are others. But I think it's going to stimulate the overall business environment and financial environment in Manhattan. And I will tell you another thing that the city has done,…

Just before you take the next question, operator. Just when Mort says we're going to begin another development shortly, we're not talking about bringing another development in the next year or so. We're talking about looking at sites where there may be development opportunities in the foreseeable future.

And your next question comes from Josh Attie.

What are your thoughts on BXP doing development in the San Francisco area? I know land is constrained in the city, but it looks like you have some land in San Jose. Is that something you're considering doing or that could make economic sense?

The short answer is yes. The long answer is economic sense is defined as finding the right tenants at the right time or feeling comfortable enough with the speculative nature of where rents are going to be that the tenants will pay a strong enough return to make it economically attractive to do. We have a site on Zanker Road. We have a site on North First Street that we're trying to permit, and we also, quite frankly, are working on a couple of additional sites in the Mountain View area where we think we have an opportunity to build some more dense-related type of development, things that are not quite as urban. Suburban campus-like as what you typically find in the Mountain View, Palo Alto area and we're encouraged by our, at least our deal flow, in terms of seeing where sites are and trying to put deals together so that we might have something going sometime over the next year or so.

And a quick question on New York. You mentioned strong activity at 250 West 55th Street and also at 399 Park, what are some of the characteristics of the tenants you're speaking with? Maybe what industries do they operate in? And do you know if they're expanding or shrinking from where they are today?

I'll characterize it as follows. The tenants that we're talking to at 250 West 55th Street are primarily law firms and some established technology companies. For the most part, the law firms are either becoming more efficient and looking at the way we have designed 250 West 55th Street in terms of the floor place [ph] , the lack of columns, the million design, the amount of perimeter offices and things. They can take less space than they currently have. And the technology companies that were looking at or companies that are probably more expanding than contracting. At 399 Park, it's a very traditional Park Avenue-centric, asset manager, hedge fund investment advisors. And for the most part, all of those tenants are expanding granularly. So a tenant that might have 35,000 square feet of space will be looking for 39,000 square feet of space with the right to or obligation to take another 5,000 square feet or 10,000 square feet of space in 2 or 3 years, that kind of thing.

And your next question comes from Jamie Feldman.

Can you talk a little bit more or talk a little bit about your latest thoughts on London and expanding overseas? We've heard your name attached to several buildings in the past quarter or so, but haven't seen anything happen.

So let me -- I'll start and I don't know if Mort wants to add anything or not. We've looked at London. We've spent some time in energy and capital, investigating some assets. We haven't bought anything, and I'd say we're focusing our attentions right now on our core markets. It doesn't mean we won't continue to think about London, but at the moment, our focus is on the markets that we're currently located in.

Okay. And along those lines, can you talk about your current wish list? I mean, you mentioned the 100 Federal building you've been watching some time. What else is out there? Whether it's in maybe in special servicing or sellers that just haven't found religion on pricing yet? How deep is the pipeline that we may see for you guys over the next year or so?

Well, I -- the depth of the pipeline we have, and whether we can come to an agreement on the deals with areas sold is -- are 2 different questions. We have a very deep pipeline of assets in Manhattan, in Washington D.C., in San Francisco and in Boston, the buildings we would like to own, billions of dollars’ worth of assets. Whether these things actually are for sale is another question. And we're not going to obviously identify what those buildings are.

But let me just add to the fact. This is for a company like Boston Properties. We really do have a comparative advantage, even the competitive advantage in terms of our ability and our credibility to buy major buildings in these markets. And you never know. We're in the flow. We're in dialogue with all kinds of different people, and you never can predict when it happens. And until you sign anything, you just don't really know whether a deal is going to close. But we're certainly in that flow and we have both the financial wherewithal and the management wherewithal and the credibility to be competitive, shall we say, and anything that comes on the market.

Okay. And then finally for Mike. Do you have an update on CapEx spend for the year? Or maybe AFFO guidance based on the revised guidance?

Sure. The CapEx spend for the year obviously, it was a little bit higher this quarter on the leasing transaction costs. We gave our guidance for our occupancy, which is basically 91% to 93%. So if you look at the amount of square footage, that leads to it somewhere between 1.5 million and 2.5 million square feet for the year. So, based upon what we think our average leasing costs are, that's somewhere between $100 million and $140 million of transaction cost. On the CapEx side, we'd break out our recurring CapEx and our nonrecurring CapEx. So we have a recurring CapEx that we believe will be $30 million or $35 million. That’s CapEx on our normal portfolio. And we do have additional CapEx that we don't include in our FAD, which is acquisition CapEx. And that relates to Bay Colony primarily, where we have we told you we're going to spend somewhere in the range of $22 million, $25 million on that asset. And you saw in the first quarter, we have about $6 million of what we call nonrecurring CapEx, and most of that was for Bay Colony. There's also some money that we'll spend about $7 million for the Hancock Tower for the next 12 to 18 months, I would say. But for our FAD purposes, the way we look at it is about $30 million to $35 million. And then if you look at the straight-line rents that I talked about, the noncash interest expense where our annual noncash interest expense will be about $30 million. And then our noncash compensation and ground lease, you come up with somewhere in the $570 million to $590 million range for FAD for the year for our projection, which is 335 to 345 a square foot or share [ph] somewhere in that area.

And your next question comes from the line of Steve Sakwa.

Mort, I guess the first question, as you've kind of look to November and the elections, I'm just wondering if you kind of think about the 2 possible outcomes for the White House and as you think about kind of the Senate races, I guess, how do you think the difference outcomes affect business leaders' psychology, which clearly seems to be holding things back? And do you have sort of a strong handicap, not so much who will win, but just on sort of the perceived outcomes that the 2 different candidates might give to the country and how that might affect the sort of the business conditions and office demand in '13 and beyond?

Well, sure. Look, I think there is no question, but that there is a sharp division in terms of the attitude of the business community, something I've written about and something I actually have lunch in the White House on and et cetera. The business community is enormously, not totally, of course, but enormously concerned over this administration. And it's not just the big business community. We have 6 million small and medium-size businesses and they are particularly concerned and it shows up in the nature of their hiring. They are mostly hiring people on a part-time basis because they are concerned over the possibility of what those -- the benefit programs are, particularly healthcare, that really inhibits them from hiring people. They want to avoid that kind of a benefit carrier and they have really been very, very careful about hiring. As I say, roughly 50% of all hires are temporary hires or part-time hires, where the, whatchamacallit, the companies are not carrying on the benefit burden that they think is just impossible for them to carry in a relatively weak economy. So I do think that we'll see what happens to the Supreme Court decision on the healthcare bill. I think that if it does get rejected, and I suspect if I had to make a modest bet, I'd say 5 to 4 that it will be rejected. I think that will take a lot of pressure off of the business community. And if somebody gets into office who is willing to take on the issues of debts and deficits and who has a more -- a clearer understanding, shall we say, of how the business community works that is not hostile to it, of course, there'll be a change in the attitude. Whether it’ll translate into large-scale…

Doug, just maybe a question for you and maybe for some of the regional folks, but we've continued to see sort of a downward pressure on space proportion [ph] in the U.S. And I'm just wondering, how much further the downsizing can go? And just how you sort of think about that? And in terms of, if we do get a rebound in jobs, do we not necessarily get a rebound into that absorption figures across the major markets?

I'd answer the question as follows, Steve. I think that there is absolutely no question that the way people work today is very different than the way they worked 10 years ago. So as long-term leases roll over, the companies that are the beneficiaries of the older spaces are going to find great efficiencies in the new configurations and the uses of space. That being said, we do not believe that you can get to 0 and that everyone is going to be virtual businesses. In fact, we think that one of the things that's going on is that the amount of space that is needed for companies to come together and bring their employees together so that they can work in groups, they can share ideas, they can feel connected to whatever they're doing is enhancing. And so the -- what we refer to as collaboration space or “we space” or whatever you want to call it, it increases and is getting larger in a lot of the sort of new age companies including financial services firms by that -- in that same vein. And that there will continue to be a need for the kind of space and the kind of buildings that we offer and operate. But that's the traditional, the easiest one to use is the law firm. The traditional law firm space is going to a different way of doing business. There are fewer conference rooms. There are a fewer secretarial support stations. There are fewer word processing pools. There are fewer areas where people are storing space, which compresses the amount the amount of space. And by the way, in some cases, the amount of lawyers that are sitting in their offices make it larger because a lot of that lawyers maybe spending time out of the office so that they don't have to be sitting on top of each other all the time. I mean absolutely, no question, we've been seeing it for 3 or 4 years in a very big way in all of our markets and it continues on a consistent basis. So we think it's here to stay.

Doug, this is Ray Ritchey. I'd just like to add too that from our perspective, Boston Properties' perspective, our locations are being sought out by these tenants who were saying, “Hey, listen, I'm taking less space, but I want to put my employees in a location where I can recruit, retain and motivate the best and brightest.” That means locations like San Francisco, Reston Town Center, obviously Cambridge, the best buildings in New York. So I think while there's a decline in space, there's a real move towards locations and buildings just like the ones we own in our core markets.

It's Robert Selsam. I want to add one note about law firms as I see them in New York. I've seen no movement away from private windows offices for attorneys, and we've seen them get a little smaller over time. And at 250 West 55th Street, we shrank the window mullion from 5 foot to 4 foot 9. So we took 6 inches off the typical 10-foot office. But that fundamental premise has not changed at all. That is a private office for attorney. And so it's only so far you can go with reducing workstations and libraries and all other facilities.

And your next question comes from Chris Caton.

I wanted to follow-up on dispositions. Could you talk a little bit about the selling process for the Bedford Research Park? And if you're actively identifying any other assets in the portfolio that you might look to sell over the next year or 2?

So the way the Bedford sale process worked is that we hired a third-party broker and we went to the market and we did an aggressive campaign and we got 5 bids. And we had a process that narrowed it down and we had a high bidder. And the high bidder re-traded us and we moved from the high bidder and we went to the second bidder and the second bidder closed. And we have identified other assets of a similar location and quality that over time, we think makes sense to prune from the portfolio. And based upon pricing and opportunities to do 1031, et cetera, we'll continue to have -- do selective stuff.

I guess, because I was also asking based on your experience in a disposition process where you're modestly pleased by the interest you attracted in that change, how you look at any of the other assets in your portfolio that you might prune over time?

We were -- what we -- what the -- what we expected and what we're -- where we were sort of indicated initially before we started the process was within 2% of where we closed the transaction. So we were not surprised nor disappointed.

Your next question comes from Alexander Goldfarb. Alexander David Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill + Partners, L.P., Research Division: Going to 510 Madison for quickly, can you just describe what the activity is like? You mentioned, I think, about 6 leases that had been done. Are you mostly seeing just sort of traditional hedge funds? Or are there other sort of small boutique users who value that -- those guys’ floor plates and quality of finish?

I'll let Robert answer that question.

It's mostly small financial firms. There are a couple of smaller international companies as well, but it's primarily what you would traditionally call hedge fund types. Alexander David Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill + Partners, L.P., Research Division: So you're not seeing like P&E law firms or anything like that? Other sorts of similar type users who would be willing to pay those rents? It's really just the hedge funds?

That's correct. Alexander David Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill + Partners, L.P., Research Division: Okay. And this is a question for Ray down in D.C. I just want to understand what the fallout from GSA scandal has been? Has that affected leasing down there? Or because of what's going on with government spending overall, the GSA scandal really hasn't affected the market much?

Well, yes. It's kind of like the perfect storm. There was some hesitance [ph] to move forward in the next 5 or 6 months just because of rushing. And now with the senior management shakeup, the higher levels, the big prospective level of procurements of space are really on hold. The day-to-day was struggling anyways. I don't think the day-to-day, the under 200,000 or 300,000 square-foot deals and renewals will be too profoundly impacted by the change at the top. But obviously, the big deals are and the day-to-day deals are just struggling under the weight of the process of GSA. So it's not a good situation at all for those who are really focusing on GSA. have 2 big renewals coming up -- I'm sorry, renewal and a competitive process. We're optimistic that both will get done because both are -- one’s an existing renewal that should -- they either have to stay or go, and they're going to stay, hopefully. And one is the mission-critical deal that we feel very confident about. Alexander David Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill + Partners, L.P., Research Division: Okay. And just a final question, on the Dewey & LeBoeuf, the law firm obviously is the latest law firm to have some issues. Are you guys noticing an increase in your credit watch of law firms? Or Dewey and Hawley [ph] last year, these are of sort isolated incidents?

Let me just answer that. The Dewey is really an isolated incident because however they came to this conclusion, they agreed to, in their desire to build a firm, they've brought in a lot of partners with guaranteed incomes of $2 million to $3 million, $4 million, even $5 million. And when the downturn hit, they obviously were in real problems in terms of meeting all of these obligations. And then it turns out that they had a big loan from the bank and the bank had a condition in it, which is not unusual for lenders -- for lawyers rather, that if there are more than 10% of the partners' lease, the loan becomes due. Well, they've lost over 20% of their partners. So they've just gotten themselves into a horrible situation. And it's not because those lawyers are still not doing well. It's just that they were brought in on terms that the firm overall couldn't afford unless they were in a continued bubble of activity. And so that was a one-off kind of a situation, the way I would describe it.

So let me give you the Boston Properties perspective. So Michael LaBelle is a relatively conservative person and he has a group of people working for him that spend an awful lot of time underwriting credit risks, and given that we have a lot of exposure to law firms, we have really good comparative information on our legal tenancies. And what is quite clear is when you have a law firm that has a lot of debt, you have things that you need to worry about. And when you have a law firm that doesn't have any debt, you've got a very different business model and a very different profile of default risk. And so we think long and hard about the firms that we are doing business with and the proposals that we're prepared to make, and particularly the amount of capital we're prepared to put into a transaction. And we have on occasion with a law firm that was highly leveraged or more highly leveraged than the other firms in our portfolio, basically made proposals that were effectively bid to lose. And we've been lucky enough that when we have had a law firm that has gone under, and we have had some, because obviously Hawley [ph] was in our portfolio, and Heller Ehrman was in our portfolio, the way that they've built out the space and the locations of those buildings have been such that they were readily re-marketable to other tenants in the law firms, and so we were able to get a great recovery on those spaces. And that again, that has to do with where our buildings are and how our buildings are put together and how people are thoughtful about putting space into our buildings and the way we push ourselves into those processes, so that we don't find ourselves with antiquated, inappropriate build-outs in these types of installations where there's potentially a risk that something like this would happen.

Your next question comes from the line of Michael Knott.

I just wonder if you can give a little more color on the decision on the comments regarding London. It seems like a fairly significant change from your past comments and is in contrast to some of the media reports. So just curious how you're thinking seems to have changed on that?

I'll start and I'll let Mort add on. I find the fact that media reports are dictating what people think is going on, frustrating because they seem to get way ahead of themselves. So I don't think that in itself has -- not that anything is changed. We can -- we looked at a number of assets in London. We looked at a number of opportunities. We pursued some. The economic requirements and the opportunities didn't get to the point where we were prepared to consummate a transaction. We, and as I said, right now, we're focusing our attention primarily on our core markets. Not to say we don't have our ear on Grindstone in London about what's going, and to the extent something of interest appears that is sort of on our radar screen. We'll continue to -- we would pursue it, but I'd say our focus is in our core markets. Mort? Anything that you want to add to that, Mort?

Yes. I'm sorry. Yes, I mean, look, again that is a market at some point that if we find the right situation, we're going to be willing to look into. It has different -- we've been going there and looking over the last several years and we've had several situations that we looked at. There are different ways in which those buildings are leased in the way those buildings’ leases are escalated, and to some extent, in the way those buildings are financed. And it's still a market that we think is attractive. We have a lot of other things that are, I think, in our own traditional markets that we think offer us at this point better opportunities. But I'm sure at some point it will be going back and then looking into that market again.

Okay. So just to summarize this. We shouldn't be surprised to see you'll eventually go there? But the odds of any kind of near-term expansion are lower than they were before?

Yes, significantly lower. We do have some situations here that we're very happy to look into and we feel we ought to concentrate on the markets we're already in.

Okay. Mort, does that suggest that you guys have some additional acquisition opportunities in the U.S. that you feel better about than you did previously?

Yes. I mean, look, we're -- that is something we are looking at all the time. We have made many acquisitions over the years. We expect to make additional acquisitions as we go forward. As I said before, we are, shall we say, uniquely qualified and competitive in that world because we know the market. We know the players. We have the -- we understand the leasing. We understand the escalations. We understand the real estate. We understand the financing [ph] . And we have the equity capital necessary to be able to move quickly and decisively. So we think we have the comparative advantage in these markets, and there are situations that we hope we can develop over time, and we're going to concentrate on that at least for the moment.

Okay and then just a quick one on the city renewal. Is that the same footprint that they have now?

Yes.

Yes.

And your next question comes from Gabriel Hilmoe.

Just following it up on the disposition question. On the Princeton portfolio, when do you think that becomes a real possibility for a potential sale again?

I can't answer that question with a timeframe. We know we thought we had a deal. The deal didn't work out. We had a 1031. It made sense at that time. At this point, our focus at the moment is on increasing the occupancy in Princeton and looking at other -- build pursuit opportunities that are -- that seem to be at least floating around the marketplace on the land that we control and at some point in time, well, we would consider a sale again.

Your next question comes from Josh Attie.

It's Michael Bilerman. I just had a question, just either Mort or Doug or Bob, just talk a little bit New York and lower Manhattan? And just in terms of the dynamics that are happening in the marketplace and sort of your thoughts overall about how space potentially could get leased up downtown? And sort of your interest potentially on expanding?

Well, that, as anybody who knows the New York market knows it's really -- turns into an astonishingly strong market. New York City is the second most active site for the sort of new high-tech economy, second only to Silicon Valley. And now just to give you an illustration, I was involved in the establishment of this new university that is going to be started on city land, 10 acres of city land, and the head of one of the major universities that was competing came to see me. And I asked him, why would you want to move from your present campus, which is in a great location and has a worldwide reputation? He said, why wouldn’t you want to move to New York? He said, New York is the only city that our faculty would be willing to move to. And I think that's one of the unique aspects of New York. It is in a position to attract a lot of the people who are in this world. It's not the only market, but I would say it's very close second to San Francisco and Silicon Valley. So I think this part of the city is going to develop in dramatic ways. We are looking for ways, consistent with what we think we can do to get involved in that market. I suspect that we're going to get involved in that market sooner rather than later. We're certainly looking and we haven't found anything yet, but we're certainly looking. And we think we are going to be in a position to appeal to that market. The model for what the city is doing with Technion University and Cornell University was, to my surprise, Kendall Square that Boston Properties developed from its inception many, many literally decades ago. So we've had a lot of experience in those kinds of companies that really are affiliated or like to affiliate with academic institutions. We did it in Cambridge. We did it to a degree that was unprecedented. We started where nobody ever even thought of those kinds of developments in what we call Technology Square in Cambridge and Kendall Square. We were really working with MIT. We're going to continue to pursue those kinds of activities because in fact, this is another major growth area, and we think we can be very effective in it. So we're definitely going to be into that piece of the market.

Okay. I -- just one comment, Mort, and you correct me if I'm wrong. That's a different characteristic than the existing inventory in and around the World Trade Center, the World Financial Center. Those are different types of buildings?

Yes, absolutely.

At this time I would like to turn the call back over to Doug Linde for any additional remarks.

Thank you all for joining us. Well I hope we've got all your questions answered. And you can always obviously feel free to call, where we think our disclosure is such that we can answer just anything at this point. And we'll see many of you at the NAREIT conference in June in New York City. Have a good rest of the week. Thanks.

This concludes today's Boston Properties conference call. Thank you again for attending, and have a great day.