Edgar Filing: BOSTON PROPERTIES INC

Form 10-K

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, DC 20549

FORM 10-K

x	ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009

¨	TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from to

Commission file number 1-13087

BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)


Delaware		04-2473675
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)		(I.R.S. Employer Identification Number)

Prudential Center, 800 Boylston Street, Suite 1900 Boston, Massachusetts		02199-8103
(Address of principal executive offices)		(Zip Code)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (617) 236-3300

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Title of each class

Name of exchange on which registered

Common Stock, par value $.01 per share

Preferred Stock Purchase Rights

New York Stock Exchange

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes x No ¨

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes ¨ No x

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes x No ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes x No ¨

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Large accelerated filer x Accelerated filer ¨ Non-accelerated filer ¨ Smaller reporting company ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). Yes ¨ No x

As of June 30, 2009, the aggregate market value of the 134,814,005 shares of common stock held by non-affiliates of the Registrant was $6,430,628,060 based upon the last reported sale price of $47.70 per share on the New York Stock Exchange on June 30, 2009. (For this computation, the Registrant has excluded the market value of all shares of Common Stock reported as beneficially owned by executive officers and directors of the Registrant; such exclusion shall not be deemed to constitute an admission that any such person is an affiliate of the Registrant.)

As of February 19, 2010, there were 138,965,804 shares of Common Stock outstanding.

Certain information contained in the Registrant’s Proxy Statement relating to its Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held May 18, 2010 is incorporated by reference in Items 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Part III. The Registrant intends to file such Proxy Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission not later than 120 days after the end of its fiscal year ended December 31, 2009.

TABLE OF CONTENTS


ITEM NO.	DESCRIPTION	PAGE NO.
PART I		1
1.	BUSINESS	1
1A.	RISK FACTORS	16
1B.	UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS	33
2.	PROPERTIES	34
3.	LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	39
4.	SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS	39
PART II		40
5.	MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES	40
6.	SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA	42
7.	MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS	44
7A.	QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK	97
8.	FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA	98
9.	CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE	148
9A.	CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES	148
9B.	OTHER INFORMATION	148
PART III		149
10.	DIRECTORS, EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE	149
11.	EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION	149
12.	SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS	149
13.	CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS, AND DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE	150
14.	PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT FEES AND SERVICES	150
PART IV		151
15.	EXHIBITS AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES	151

PART I

Item 1.

Business

General

As used herein, the terms “we,” “us,” “our” and the “Company” refer to Boston Properties, Inc., a Delaware corporation organized in 1997, individually or together with its subsidiaries, including Boston Properties Limited Partnership, a Delaware limited partnership, and our predecessors. We are a fully integrated, self-administered and self-managed real estate investment trust, or “REIT,” and one of the largest owners and developers of office properties in the United States.

Our properties are concentrated in five markets—Boston, Washington, DC, midtown Manhattan, San Francisco and Princeton, NJ. We conduct substantially all of our business through our subsidiary, Boston Properties Limited Partnership. At December 31, 2009, we owned or had interests in 146 properties, totaling approximately 37.7 million net rentable square feet and structured parking for vehicles containing approximately 12.8 million square feet. Our properties consisted of:

•

140 office properties including 120 Class A office properties (including three properties under construction) and 20 Office/Technical properties;

•

one hotel;

•

three retail properties; and

•

two residential properties (both of which are under construction).

We own or control undeveloped land totaling approximately 510.1 acres, which will support approximately 12.7 million square feet of development. In addition, we have a noncontrolling interest in the Boston Properties Office Value-Added Fund, L.P., which we refer to as the “Value-Added Fund,” which is a strategic partnership with two institutional investors through which we have pursued the acquisition of assets within our existing markets that have deficiencies in property characteristics which provide an opportunity to create value through repositioning, refurbishment or renovation. Our investments through the Value-Added Fund are not included in our portfolio information tables or any other portfolio level statistics. At December 31, 2009, the Value-Added Fund had investments in an office complex in San Carlos, California, an office property in Chelmsford, Massachusetts and office/technical properties in Mountain View, California.

We consider Class A office properties to be centrally-located buildings that are professionally managed and maintained, attract high-quality tenants and command upper-tier rental rates, and that are modern structures or have been modernized to compete with newer buildings. We consider Office/Technical properties to be properties that support office, research and development, laboratory and other technical uses. Our definitions of Class A office and Office/Technical properties may be different than those used by other companies.

We are a full-service real estate company, with substantial in-house expertise and resources in acquisitions, development, financing, capital markets, construction management, property management, marketing, leasing, accounting, tax and legal services. As of December 31, 2009, we had approximately 700 employees. Our thirty-four senior officers have an average of twenty-five years experience in the real estate industry including an average of fifteen years of experience with us. Our principal executive office and Boston regional office is located at The Prudential Center, 800 Boylston Street, Suite 1900, Boston, Massachusetts 02199 and our telephone number is (617) 236-3300. In addition, we have regional offices at 505 9^th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20004; 599 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York 10022; Four Embarcadero Center, San Francisco, California 94111; and 302 Carnegie Center, Princeton, New Jersey 08540.

Our Web site is located at http://www.bostonproperties.com. On our Web site, you can obtain a free copy of our annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments

to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC. The name “Boston Properties” and our logo (consisting of a stylized “b”) are registered service marks of Boston Properties Limited Partnership.

Boston Properties Limited Partnership

Boston Properties Limited Partnership, or BPLP, is a Delaware limited partnership, and the entity through which we conduct substantially all of our business and own, either directly or through subsidiaries, substantially all of our assets. We are the sole general partner and, as of February 19, 2010, the owner of approximately 85.8% of the economic interests in BPLP. Economic interest was calculated as the number of common partnership units of BPLP owned by the Company as a percentage of the sum of (1) the actual aggregate number of outstanding common partnership units of BPLP, (2) the number of common partnership units issuable upon conversion of outstanding preferred partnership units of BPLP and (3) the number of common units issuable upon conversion of all outstanding long term incentive plan units of BPLP, or LTIP Units, other than LTIP Units issued in the form of 2008 Outperformance Awards (“2008 OPP Awards”), assuming all conditions have been met for the conversion of the LTIP Units. An LTIP Unit is generally the economic equivalent of a share of our restricted common stock, although LTIP Units issued in the form of 2008 OPP Awards are only entitled to receive one-tenth (1/10^th) of the regular quarterly distributions (and no special distributions) prior to being earned. Our general and limited partnership interests in BPLP entitle us to share in cash distributions from, and in the profits and losses of, BPLP in proportion to our percentage interest and entitle us to vote on all matters requiring a vote of the limited partners. The other limited partners of BPLP are persons who contributed their direct or indirect interests in properties to BPLP in exchange for common units or preferred units of limited partnership interest in BPLP or recipients of LTIP Units pursuant to the Second Amendment and Restatement of our 1997 Stock Option and Incentive Plan (the “1997 Plan”). Under the limited partnership agreement of BPLP, unitholders may present their common units of BPLP for redemption at any time (subject to restrictions agreed upon at the time of issuance of the units that may restrict such right for a period of time, generally one year from issuance). Upon presentation of a unit for redemption, BPLP must redeem the unit for cash equal to the then value of a share of our common stock. In lieu of cash redemption by BPLP, however, we may elect to acquire any common units so tendered by issuing shares of our common stock in exchange for the common units. If we so elect, our common stock will be exchanged for common units on a one-for-one basis. This one-for-one exchange ratio is subject to specified adjustments to prevent dilution. We generally expect that we will elect to issue our common stock in connection with each such presentation for redemption rather than having BPLP pay cash. With each such exchange or redemption, our percentage ownership in BPLP will increase. In addition, whenever we issue shares of our common stock other than to acquire common units of BPLP, we must contribute any net proceeds we receive to BPLP and BPLP must issue to us an equivalent number of common units of BPLP. This structure is commonly referred to as an umbrella partnership REIT, or “UPREIT.”

Preferred units of BPLP have the rights, preferences and other privileges, including the right to convert into common units of BPLP, as are set forth in an amendment to the limited partnership agreement of BPLP. As of December 31, 2009 and February 19, 2010, BPLP had one series of its preferred units outstanding. The Series Two preferred units have a liquidation preference of $50.00 per unit (or an aggregate of approximately $55.7 million at December 31, 2009 and February 19, 2010). The Series Two preferred units are convertible, at the holder’s election, into common units at a conversion price of $38.10 per common unit (equivalent to a ratio of 1.312336 common units per Series Two preferred unit). Distributions on the Series Two Preferred Units are payable quarterly and, unless the greater rate described in the next sentence applies, accrue at 7.0% until May 12, 2009 and 6.0% thereafter. If distributions on the number of OP Units into which the Series Two Preferred Units are convertible are greater than distributions calculated using the rates described in the preceding sentence for the applicable quarterly period, then the greater distributions are payable instead. The holders of Series Two Preferred Units have the right to require BPLP to redeem their units for cash at the redemption price of $50.00 per unit on May 12, 2009, May 12, 2010, May 12, 2011, May 14, 2012, May 14, 2013 and May 12, 2014. The maximum number of units that may be required to be redeemed from all holders on each of these dates is

1,007,662, which is one-sixth of the number of Series Two Preferred Units that were originally issued. No holder exercised its right to have its Series Two Preferred Units redeemed for cash as of May 12, 2009. BPLP also has the right, under certain conditions and at certain times, to redeem Series Two Preferred Units for cash and to convert into OP Units any Series Two Preferred Units that are not redeemed when they are eligible for redemption.

Transactions During 2009

Developments

On January 16, 2009, we acquired the development rights for the site at 17 Cambridge Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts for approximately $11.4 million. On November 6, 2009, we acquired the land parcel at 17 Cambridge Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts for a gross purchase price of approximately $6.0 million.

On February 6, 2009, we announced that we were suspending construction on our 1,000,000 square foot office project at 250 West 55^th Street in New York City. During December 2009, we completed the construction of foundations and steel/deck to grade to facilitate a restart of construction in the future and as a result ceased interest capitalization on the project. During the year ended December 31, 2009, we recognized a loss of approximately $27.8 million related to the suspension of development, which amount included a $20.0 million contractual amount due pursuant to a lease agreement. On January 19, 2010, we paid $12.8 million related to the termination of such lease. As a result, we will recognize approximately $7.2 million of other income during the first quarter of 2010.

During the year ended December 31, 2009, we placed in-service the following development properties:

•

On April 1, 2009, we placed in-service One Preserve Parkway, an approximately 183,000 net rentable square foot Class A office property located in Rockville, Maryland. The property is 65% leased.

•

On May 31, 2009, a consolidated joint venture in which we have a 66.67% interest placed in-service the Offices at Wisconsin Place, an approximately 299,000 net rentable square foot Class A office property located in Chevy Chase, Maryland. The property is 91% leased.

•

On August 1, 2009, we placed in-service Democracy Tower, an approximately 235,000 net rentable square foot Class A office property located in Reston, Virginia. The property is 100% leased.

•

On October 9, 2009, we placed in-service 701 Carnegie Center, an approximately 120,000 net rentable square foot Class A office property located in Princeton, New Jersey. The property is 100% leased.

As of December 31, 2009, we had three projects under construction comprised of three office properties and two residential properties, which aggregate an estimated total investment of approximately $1.1 billion and approximately 2.0 million square feet. The investment through December 31, 2009 and estimated total investment for our properties under construction as of December 31, 2009 are detailed below (in thousands):


Properties Under Construction	Estimated Stabilization Date	Location	Investment through December 31, 2009(1)		Estimated Total Investment(2)
Atlantic Wharf (formerly known as Russia Wharf)(3)	First Quarter, 2012	Boston, MA	$	384,298	$	600,000
2200 Pennsylvania Avenue(3)	Second Quarter, 2012	Washington, DC		88,925		380,000
Weston Corporate Center	Third Quarter, 2010	Weston, MA		98,602		150,000

Total			$	571,825	$	1,130,000

(1)	Amounts include approximately $50.7 million of accruals.

(2)	Includes net revenue during lease up period.

(3)	Project is comprised of both an office and a residential component.

Secured Debt Transactions

On April 21, 2009, we obtained construction financing of up to $215.0 million collateralized by our Atlantic Wharf development project located in Boston, Massachusetts. Atlantic Wharf, formerly known as Russia Wharf, is a mixed-use project with approximately 860,000 net rentable square feet (of which 70,000 square feet is residential). Wellington Management Company, LLP has leased approximately 450,000 square feet of the office space in the development. The construction financing bears interest at a variable rate equal to LIBOR plus 3.00% per annum and matures on April 21, 2012 with two, one-year extension options, subject to certain conditions. There were no amounts drawn on the construction facility during 2009.

On June 9, 2009, we used available cash to repay the mortgage loan collateralized by our Reservoir Place property located in Waltham, Massachusetts totaling approximately $47.8 million. The mortgage loan bore interest at a fixed rate of 7.00% per annum and was scheduled to mature on July 1, 2009. There was no prepayment penalty.

On June 26, 2009, we used available cash to repay the mortgage loan collateralized by our Ten Cambridge Center property located in Cambridge, Massachusetts totaling approximately $30.1 million. The mortgage loan bore interest at a fixed rate of 8.27% per annum and was scheduled to mature on May 1, 2010. We paid a prepayment penalty totaling $0.5 million.

On July 30, 2009, we obtained mortgage financing totaling $50.0 million collateralized by our Reservoir Place property located in Waltham, Massachusetts. The mortgage financing currently bears interest at a variable rate equal to LIBOR plus 3.85% per annum and matures on July 30, 2014.

On August 3, 2009, we used available cash to repay the mortgage loans collateralized by our 1301 New York Avenue property located in Washington, DC aggregating approximately $20.5 million. The mortgage loans bore interest at a weighted-average fixed rate of 6.91% per annum and were scheduled to mature on August 15, 2009. There were no prepayment penalties.

Senior Notes Offering

On October 9, 2009, BPLP completed a public offering of $700.0 million in aggregate principal amount of its 5.875% senior notes due 2019. The notes were priced at 99.931% of the principal amount to yield 5.967% to maturity. The aggregate net proceeds to BPLP, after deducting underwriter discounts and offering expenses, were approximately $693.7 million. The notes mature on October 15, 2019, unless earlier redeemed by BPLP.

Equity Transactions

On June 10, 2009, we completed a public offering of 17,250,000 shares of our common stock (including 2,250,000 shares issued as a result of the exercise of an overallotment option by the underwriters) at a price to the public of $50.00 per share. The proceeds from this public offering, net of underwriters’ discounts and offering costs, totaled approximately $841.9 million.

During the year ended December 31, 2009, we acquired an aggregate of 138,856 common units of limited partnership interest, including 44,287 common units issued upon the conversion of LTIP units, presented by the holders for redemption, in exchange for an equal number of shares of common stock. During the year ended December 31, 2009, we issued 242,507 shares of common stock as a result of stock options being exercised.

Investments in Unconsolidated Joint Ventures

During June 2009, we recognized a non-cash impairment charge of approximately $7.4 million, which represented the other-than-temporary decline in the fair value below the carrying value of our investment in the Value-Added Fund.

During December 2009, our Value-Added Fund, an unconsolidated joint venture, recognized a non-cash impairment charge related to its One and Two Circle Star Way properties in San Carlos, California totaling approximately $24.6 million, of which our share was approximately $4.2 million. In addition, we recognized a non-cash impairment charge of approximately $2.0 million representing the other-than-temporary decline in the fair value below the remaining carrying value of our investment in the Value-Added Fund.

Noncontrolling Interest in Property Partnerships

On January 5, 2009, we repaid a $25.0 million loan in connection with the agreement entered into in May 2006 to redeem the outside members’ equity interests in the limited liability company that owns 601 Lexington Avenue (formerly known as Citigroup Center).

Major Tenant Bankruptcies

On April 30, 2009, Lehman Brothers, Inc., which was then our tenth largest tenant (by square feet) with approximately 437,000 net rentable square feet in our 399 Park Avenue property, rejected its lease in bankruptcy. We had previously established a reserve for the full amount of the Lehman Brothers, Inc. accrued straight-line rent balance during the third quarter of 2008. Lehman Brothers, Inc. paid rent through the month of April 2009 for all of its space and continued to occupy approximately 180,000 net rentable square feet through June 22, 2009, for which we received an aggregate of approximately $19.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2009. As of June 23, 2009, Lehman Brothers, Inc. ceased to occupy or lease any space from us. Lehman Brothers, Inc. had contributed approximately $44.9 million per year on a contractual basis to our revenues from this lease. As of December 31, 2009, we have signed leases with tenants for approximately 372,000 net rentable square feet of the vacated space.

On June 1, 2009, General Motors Corporation filed a petition under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. At that time, we leased approximately 120,000 square feet of office space to General Motors Corporation at 601 Lexington Avenue (formerly known as Citigroup Center). Rent commencement for the lease at 601 Lexington Avenue began on June 1, 2009 and the lease was scheduled to expire on May 31, 2019. However, on June 12, 2009, General Motors Corporation rejected the lease in bankruptcy effective as of June 30, 2009. The contribution from this lease, on a contractual basis, from July 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009, was projected to be approximately $6.6 million. As of December 31, 2009, we have signed leases with tenants for approximately 90,000 net rentable square feet of the vacated space.

Business and Growth Strategies

Business Strategy

Our primary business objective is to maximize return on investment so as to provide our investors with the greatest possible total return. Our strategy to achieve this objective is:

•

to concentrate on a few carefully selected geographic markets, including Boston, Washington, DC, midtown Manhattan, San Francisco and Princeton, NJ, and to be one of the leading, if not the leading, owners and developers in each of those markets. We select markets and submarkets where tenants have demonstrated a preference for high-quality office buildings and other facilities;

•

to emphasize markets and submarkets within those markets where the lack of available sites and the difficulty of receiving the necessary approvals for development and the necessary financing constitute high barriers to the creation of new supply, and where skill, financial strength and diligence are required to successfully develop, finance and manage high-quality office, research and development space, as well as selected retail space;

•

to take on complex, technically challenging projects, leveraging the skills of our management team to successfully develop, acquire or reposition properties that other organizations may not have the capacity or resources to pursue;

•

to concentrate on high-quality real estate designed to meet the demands of today’s tenants who require sophisticated telecommunications and related infrastructure and support services, and to manage those facilities so as to become the landlord of choice for both existing and prospective clients;

•

to opportunistically acquire assets which increase our penetration in the markets in which we have chosen to concentrate and which exhibit an opportunity to improve or preserve returns through repositioning (through a combination of capital improvements and shift in marketing strategy), changes in management focus and re-leasing as existing leases terminate;

•

to explore joint venture opportunities primarily with existing property owners located in desirable locations, who seek to benefit from the depth of development and management expertise we are able to provide and our access to capital, and/or to explore joint venture opportunities with strategic institutional partners, leveraging our skills as owners, operators and developers of Class A office space, as well as partners with expertise in mixed-use opportunities;

•

to pursue on a selective basis the sale of properties, including core properties, to take advantage of our value creation and the demand for our premier properties;

•

to seek third-party development contracts, which can be a significant source of revenue and enable us to retain and utilize our existing development and construction management staff, especially when our internal development is less active or when new development is less-warranted due to market conditions; and

•

to enhance our capital structure through our access to a variety of sources of capital.

Growth Strategies

External Growth

We believe that our development experience and our organizational depth position us to continue to selectively develop a range of property types, including low-rise suburban office properties, high-rise urban developments, mixed-use developments (including residential) and research and laboratory space, within budget and on schedule. Other factors that contribute to our competitive position include:

•

our control of sites (including sites under contract or option to acquire) in our markets that will support approximately 12.7 million square feet of new office, retail, hotel and residential development;

•

our reputation gained through 40 years of successful operations and the stability and strength of our existing portfolio of properties;

•

our relationships with leading national corporations, universities and public institutions seeking new facilities and development services;

•

our relationships with nationally recognized financial institutions that provide capital to the real estate industry;

•

our track record and reputation for executing acquisitions efficiently provides comfort to domestic and foreign institutions, private investors and corporations who seek to sell commercial real estate in our market areas;

•

our ability to act quickly on due diligence and financing; and

•

our relationships with institutional buyers and sellers of high-quality real estate assets.

Opportunities to execute our external growth strategy fall into three categories:

•

Development in selected submarkets. We believe the continued development of well-positioned office buildings will be justified in many of our submarkets. We believe in acquiring land after taking into consideration timing factors relating to economic cycles and in response to market conditions that allow for its development at the appropriate time. While we purposely concentrate in markets with high barriers-to-entry, we have demonstrated throughout our 40-year history, an ability to make carefully timed land acquisitions in submarkets where we can become one of the market leaders in establishing rent and other business terms. We believe that there are opportunities at key locations in our existing and other markets for a well-capitalized developer to acquire land with development potential.

In the past, we have been particularly successful at acquiring sites or options to purchase sites that need governmental approvals for development. Because of our development expertise, knowledge of the governmental approval process and reputation for quality development with local government regulatory bodies, we generally have been able to secure the permits necessary to allow development and to profit from the resulting increase in land value. We seek complex projects where we can add value through the efforts of our experienced and skilled management team leading to attractive returns on investment.

Our strong regional relationships and recognized development expertise have enabled us to capitalize on unique build-to-suit opportunities. We intend to seek and expect to continue to be presented with such opportunities in the near term allowing us to earn relatively significant returns on these development opportunities through multiple business cycles.

•

Acquisition of assets and portfolios of assets from institutions or individuals. We believe that due to our size, management strength and reputation, we are well positioned to acquire portfolios of assets or individual properties from institutions or individuals if valuations meet our criteria. In addition, we believe that our relatively low leverage and our liquidity and access to capital may provide us with a competitive advantage when pursuing acquisitions in the current credit-constrained environment. There may be enhanced opportunities to purchase assets with near-term financing maturities or possibly provide debt on assets at enhanced yields given the limited availability of traditional sources of debt. Opportunities to acquire properties may also come through the purchase of first mortgage or mezzanine debt. We may also acquire properties for cash, but we are also particularly well-positioned to appeal to sellers wishing to contribute on a tax-deferred basis their ownership of property for equity in a diversified real estate operating company that offers liquidity through access to the public equity markets in addition to a quarterly distribution. Our ability to offer common and preferred units of limited partnership in BPLP to sellers who would otherwise recognize a taxable gain upon a sale of assets or our common stock may facilitate this type of transaction on a tax-efficient basis. In addition, we may consider mergers with and acquisitions of compatible real estate firms.

•

Acquisition of underperforming assets and portfolios of assets. We believe that because of our in-depth market knowledge and development experience in each of our markets, our national reputation with brokers, financial institutions and others involved in the real estate market and our access to competitively-priced capital, we are well-positioned to identify and acquire existing, underperforming properties for competitive prices and to add significant additional value to such properties through our effective marketing strategies and a responsive property management program. We have developed this strategy and program for our existing portfolio, where we provide high-quality property management services using our own employees in order to encourage tenants to renew, expand and relocate in our properties. We are able to achieve speed and transaction cost efficiency in replacing departing tenants through the use of in-house and third-party vendors’ services for marketing, including calls and presentations to prospective tenants, print advertisements, lease negotiation and construction of tenant improvements. Our tenants benefit from cost efficiencies produced by our experienced work force, which is attentive to preventive maintenance and energy management.

Internal Growth

We believe that opportunities will exist to increase cash flow from our existing properties because they are of high quality and in desirable locations. In addition, our properties are in markets where, in general, the creation of new supply is limited by the lack of available sites, the difficulty of receiving the necessary approvals for development on vacant land and the difficulty of obtaining financing. Our strategy for maximizing the benefits from these opportunities is three-fold: (1) to provide high-quality property management services using our employees in order to encourage tenants to renew, expand and relocate in our properties, (2) to achieve speed and transaction cost efficiency in replacing departing tenants through the use of in-house services for marketing, lease negotiation and construction of tenant improvements and (3) to work with new or existing tenants with space expansion or contraction needs maximizing the cash flow from our assets. We expect to continue our internal growth as a result of our ability to:

•

Cultivate existing submarkets and long-term relationships with credit tenants. In choosing locations for our properties, we have paid particular attention to transportation and commuting patterns, physical environment, adjacency to established business centers, proximity to sources of business growth and other local factors.

We had an average lease term of 7.0 years at December 31, 2009 and continue to cultivate long-term leasing relationships with a diverse base of high-quality, financially stable tenants. Based on leases in place at December 31, 2009, leases with respect to 9.1% of the total square feet in our portfolio will expire in calendar year 2010.

•

Directly manage properties to maximize the potential for tenant retention. We provide property management services ourselves, rather than contracting for this service, to maintain awareness of and responsiveness to tenant needs. We and our properties also benefit from cost efficiencies produced by an experienced work force attentive to preventive maintenance and energy management and from our continuing programs to assure that our property management personnel at all levels remain aware of their important role in tenant relations.

•

Replace tenants quickly at best available market terms and lowest possible transaction costs. We believe that we are well-positioned to attract new tenants and achieve relatively high rental rates as a result of our well-located, well-designed and well-maintained properties, our reputation for high-quality building services and responsiveness to tenants, and our ability to offer expansion and relocation alternatives within our submarkets.

•

Extend terms of existing leases to existing tenants prior to expiration. We have also successfully structured early tenant renewals, which have reduced the cost associated with lease downtime while securing the tenancy of our highest quality credit-worthy tenants on a long-term basis and enhancing relationships.

Policies with Respect to Certain Activities

The discussion below sets forth certain additional information regarding our investment, financing and other policies. These policies have been determined by our Board of Directors and, in general, may be amended or revised from time to time by our Board of Directors.

Investment Policies

Investments in Real Estate or Interests in Real Estate

Our investment objectives are to provide quarterly cash dividends to our securityholders and to achieve long-term capital appreciation through increases in the value of Boston Properties, Inc. We have not established a specific policy regarding the relative priority of these investment objectives.

We expect to continue to pursue our investment objectives primarily through the ownership of our current properties, development projects and other acquired properties. We currently intend to continue to invest primarily in developments of properties and acquisitions of existing improved properties or properties in need of redevelopment, and acquisitions of land that we believe have development potential, primarily in our markets—Boston, Washington, DC, midtown Manhattan, San Francisco and Princeton, NJ. Future investment or development activities will not be limited to a specified percentage of our assets. We intend to engage in such future investment or development activities in a manner that is consistent with the maintenance of our status as a REIT for federal income tax purposes. In addition, we may purchase or lease income-producing commercial and other types of properties for long-term investment, expand and improve the real estate presently owned or other properties purchased, or sell such real estate properties, in whole or in part, when circumstances warrant. We do not have a policy that restricts the amount or percentage of assets that will be invested in any specific property, however, our investments may be restricted by our debt covenants.

We may also continue to participate with third parties in property ownership, through joint ventures or other types of co-ownership, including third parties with expertise in mixed-use opportunities. These investments may permit us to own interests in larger assets without unduly restricting diversification and, therefore, add flexibility in structuring our portfolio.

Equity investments may be subject to existing mortgage financing and other indebtedness or such financing or indebtedness as may be incurred in connection with acquiring or refinancing these investments. Debt service on such financing or indebtedness will have a priority over any distributions with respect to our common stock. Investments are also subject to our policy not to be treated as an investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”).

Investments in Real Estate Mortgages

While our current portfolio consists of, and our business objectives emphasize, equity investments in commercial real estate, we may, at the discretion of the Board of Directors, invest in mortgages and other types of real estate interests consistent with our qualification as a REIT. Investments in real estate mortgages run the risk that one or more borrowers may default under such mortgages and that the collateral securing such mortgages may not be sufficient to enable us to recoup our full investment. Although we currently do not have any investments in mortgages or deeds of trust, we may invest in participating or convertible mortgages if we conclude that we may benefit from the cash flow or any appreciation in value of the property.

Securities of or Interests in Persons Primarily Engaged in Real Estate Activities

Subject to the percentage of ownership limitations and gross income tests necessary for our REIT qualification, we also may invest in securities of other REITs, other entities engaged in real estate activities or securities of other issuers, including for the purpose of exercising control over such entities.

Dispositions

Our disposition of properties is based upon the periodic review of our portfolio and the determination by the Board of Directors that such action would be in our best interests. Any decision to dispose of a property will be authorized by the Board of Directors or a committee thereof. Some holders of limited partnership interests in BPLP, including Mortimer B. Zuckerman and the estate of Edward H. Linde, would incur adverse tax consequences upon the sale of certain of our properties that differ from the tax consequences to us. Consequently, holders of limited partnership interests in BPLP may have different objectives regarding the appropriate pricing and timing of any such sale. Such different tax treatment derives in most cases from the fact that we acquired these properties in exchange for partnership interests in contribution transactions structured to allow the prior owners to defer taxable gain. Generally this deferral continues so long as we do not dispose of the properties in a taxable transaction. Unless a sale by us of these properties is structured as a like-kind exchange under

Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code or in a manner that otherwise allows deferral to continue, recognition of the deferred tax gain allocable to these prior owners is generally triggered by the sale. Some of our assets are subject to tax protection agreements, which may limit our ability to dispose of the assets or require us to pay damages to the prior owners in the event of a taxable sale.

Financing Policies

The agreement of limited partnership of BPLP and our certificate of incorporation and bylaws do not limit the amount or percentage of indebtedness that we may incur. We do not have a policy limiting the amount of indebtedness that we may incur. However, our mortgages, credit facilities and unsecured debt securities contain customary restrictions, requirements and other limitations on our ability to incur indebtedness. We have not established any limit on the number or amount of mortgages that may be placed on any single property or on our portfolio as a whole.

Our Board of Directors will consider a number of factors when evaluating our level of indebtedness and when making decisions regarding the incurrence of indebtedness, including the purchase price of properties to be acquired with debt financing, the estimated market value of our properties upon refinancing, the entering into agreements such as interest rate swaps, caps, floors and other interest rate hedging contracts and the ability of particular properties and BPLP as a whole to generate cash flow to cover expected debt service.

Policies with Respect to Other Activities

As the sole general partner of BPLP, we have the authority to issue additional common and preferred units of limited partnership interest of BPLP. We have in the past, and may in the future, issue common or preferred units of limited partnership interest of BPLP to persons who contribute their direct or indirect interests in properties to us in exchange for such common or preferred units of limited partnership interest in BPLP. We have not engaged in trading, underwriting or agency distribution or sale of securities of issuers other than BPLP and we do not intend to do so. At all times, we intend to make investments in such a manner as to maintain our qualification as a REIT, unless because of circumstances or changes in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (or the Treasury Regulations), our Board of Directors determines that it is no longer in our best interest to qualify as a REIT. We may make loans to third parties, including, without limitation, to joint ventures in which we participate or in connection with the disposition of a property. We intend to make investments in such a way that we will not be treated as an investment company under the 1940 Act. Our policies with respect to these and other activities may be reviewed and modified or amended from time to time by the Board of Directors.

Energy and Natural Resource Conservation

As one of the largest owners and developers of office properties in the United States, we strive to limit our energy and natural resource consumption through active management at our properties. On an annual basis, we identify capital improvement projects and building systems enhancements that have the potential to reduce the use of energy at our properties. The identified projects and enhancements are then reviewed with senior management, and the projects and enhancements that offer material energy or resource savings and meet our investment criteria are then implemented.

In 2009, we continued to improve the process through a more holistic, corporate-wide approach. Our Sustainability Committee, which was formed in 2008, focused on (1) identifying and executing new strategies for promoting sustainability in new construction, existing buildings and corporate operations, (2) promoting communication across regions, (3) sharing “best practices” and (4) assessing the cost effectiveness of small and large scale projects and programs. Over the past several years, we have implemented numerous improvement projects and system enhancements, including, without limitation, the following:

•

installation of higher efficiency lighting in public spaces, garages, stairways and elevators;

•

installing lighting occupancy sensors in common areas and restrooms;

•

installation of new, high-efficiency motors, variable frequency drives (“VFDs”), air compressors, chillers and other heating, ventilation and air conditioning (“HVAC”) system components;

•

replacing and upgrading energy management systems, including installation of carbon dioxide controls and adjusting temperature set points;

•

installation of solar reflective window film to reduce solar heat gain, glare and ultraviolet radiation, and adding wall and ceiling insulation to reduce thermal losses;

•

modernizing cooling towers with high-efficiency fill and distribution pans;

•

implementing programs to minimize use of water and reclaim steam condensate for our cooling towers;

•

upgrading water treatment, plumbing and irrigation operations;

•

installing low flow bathroom fixtures; and

•

implementing extensive recycling programs.

In addition to the physical improvements and systems enhancements described above, we also benchmark building energy and resource consumption with the goal of optimizing equipment use and operation. Across our regions we provide training for our property management staff and strive to make our tenants more aware of energy codes and energy saving opportunities. For example, we have worked collaboratively with our tenants at many of our buildings to implement new policies trying to limit use of HVAC on weekends. We also continue to increase the use of shuttle services between certain of our properties and the local bus and subway stations to encourage the use of mass transportation. These management initiatives are intended to not only help reduce energy consumption in the short term, but also heighten awareness of the issue to help ensure energy efficiency over the long term.

Properties across our portfolio have been routinely rated and benchmarked for years on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Energy Star^® program. In 2009, we adopted an Energy Star strategy which requires all buildings for which we have sufficient utility data and occupancy to have their energy use monitored using Energy Star Portfolio Manager. In 2009, 25 of our properties earned the Energy Star Award, accounting for approximately 11.1 million square feet of energy efficiency excellence. This is an increase of seven buildings over our final 2008 count, or an additional 1.7 million square feet (+18%). We expect additional properties across our portfolio will receive the same recognition in 2010. We believe our efforts described above have led to a meaningful reduction in the number of kilowatt-hours (“kWh”) used in the operation of our properties and a reduction in our operating expenses.

In addition to the efforts described above, we participate in utility rebate programs when making significant capital improvements and, when economically practicable, we subscribe to long-term, fixed utility contracts on a regional basis.

On an annual basis, we intend to continue to explore ways of reducing our energy consumption and related expenses, and conserving natural resources, across our portfolio. “Green” buildings are designed, constructed and operated to provide greater environmental, economic, health and productivity performance than conventional buildings. As a building owner, we participate in the U.S. Green Building Council’s (“USGBC”) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (“LEED”) program designed for existing buildings. The LEED Green Building Rating System ^® is a voluntary, consensus-based national standard of design guidelines for high-performance, sustainable “Green” buildings. The USGBC’s LEED certification follows a rigorous registration process which evaluates and gives Certified, Silver, Gold, and Platinum ratings to green buildings. We have established a LEED-Existing Building Committee which oversees and supports our utilization of the program. In 2009, we had our first building certified under the LEED-Existing Building certification program, as our Waltham Weston Corporate Center achieved a Silver rating. Several other buildings are being evaluated for certification in 2010.

We have also made a concerted effort to train and accredit our managers and staff in green design, construction and operations. At the end of 2009, 35 managers and staff across the development, property management and construction departments were LEED Accredited Professionals or Green Associates. Maintaining and strengthening our internal green design, construction and operations capabilities and knowledge base is a key aspect of our overall environmental strategy.

Environmentally Sound Development

As a developer, we participate in the USGBC’s LEED programs designed for new construction and commercial interiors. In 2009, we received LEED-Core and Shell Gold certifications for two recently completed development projects totaling over 320,000 square feet – 77 City Point in Waltham, MA and Annapolis Junction in Annapolis, MD. In addition, during February 2010 we received LEED-Core and Shell Gold certification for Democracy Tower, a 235,000 square foot Class A office property in Reston, VA.

As of February 16, 2010, we have the following LEED-Core and Shell registered projects:

•

Atlantic Wharf in Boston, MA—This 860,000 square foot mixed-use development project has been pre-certified Gold LEED.

•

Weston Corporate Center in Weston, MA—This 356,000 square foot Class A office development has been registered and anticipates a Gold LEED rating.

•

2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC—This 780,000 square foot mixed-use development project has been pre-certified Silver LEED.

•

701 Carnegie Center in Princeton, NJ—This 120,000 square foot Class A office property has been registered and anticipates a Silver LEED rating.

The Weston Corporate Center, currently under construction and to be delivered in the summer of 2010, also has two environmentally significant firsts for us. The first is the use of chilled water from a quarry pond on site for cooling the building, reducing the electricity demand for HVAC significantly. The second attribute is the installation of our first solar photovoltaic array. The first phase will be a 110 kW ground mounted installation. We anticipate exploring additional installations across the portfolio.

Numerous other development projects are LEED registered and targeting LEED Silver ratings or better. In addition, we actively seek opportunities to achieve LEED ratings on commercial interiors as tenants build-out or renovate their space. We have numerous commercial interior projects either planned or currently under construction that have been designed to achieve LEED certification. By the end of 2009 seven tenant build-outs had achieved LEED-Commercial Interior certifications totaling almost 440,000 square feet of tenant space across our portfolio. One of those spaces was our headquarters in the Prudential Center in Boston.

Many of the local jurisdictions in which we operate and develop buildings are also making efforts to promote environmentally sound developments by adopting aspects of the LEED program. As a result, we intend to continue to be proactive in evaluating each new development to determine whether it is physically practical and economically feasible to produce a LEED certified building. Barring unusual use, site or design constraints, we target LEED-Silver or better on all new developments. We also participate actively in green building organizations and government initiatives in the markets.

Competition

We compete in the leasing of office space with a considerable number of other real estate companies, some of which may have greater marketing and financial resources than are available to us. In addition, our hotel property competes for guests with other hotels, some of which may have greater marketing and financial resources than are available to us and to the manager of our one hotel, Marriott International, Inc.

Principal factors of competition in our primary business of owning, acquiring and developing office properties are the quality of properties, leasing terms (including rent and other charges and allowances for tenant improvements), attractiveness and convenience of location, the quality and breadth of tenant services provided, and reputation as an owner and operator of quality office properties in the relevant market. Additionally, our ability to compete depends upon, among other factors, trends of the national and local economies, investment alternatives, financial condition and operating results of current and prospective tenants, availability and cost of capital, construction and renovation costs, taxes, utilities, governmental regulations, legislation and population trends.

Our Hotel Property

We operate our hotel property through a taxable REIT subsidiary. The taxable REIT subsidiary, a wholly-owned subsidiary of BPLP, is the lessee pursuant to leases for the hotel property. As lessor, BPLP is entitled to a percentage of gross receipts from the hotel property. The hotel lease allows all the economic benefits of ownership to flow to us. Marriott International, Inc. continues to manage the hotel property under the Marriott name and under terms of the existing management agreements. Marriott has been engaged under a separate long-term incentive management agreement to operate and manage the hotel on behalf of the taxable REIT subsidiary. In connection with these arrangements, Marriott has agreed to operate and maintain our hotel in accordance with its system-wide standard for comparable hotels and to provide the hotel with the benefits of its central reservation system and other chain-wide programs and services. Under a management agreement for the hotel, Marriott acts as the taxable REIT subsidiary’s agent to supervise, direct and control the management and operation of the hotel and receives as compensation base management fees that are calculated as a percentage of the hotel’s gross revenues, and supplemental incentive fees if the hotel exceeds negotiated profitability breakpoints. In addition, the taxable REIT subsidiary compensates Marriott, on the basis of a formula applied to the hotel’s gross revenues, for certain system-wide services provided by Marriott, including central reservations, marketing and training. During 2009, 2008 and 2007, Marriott received an aggregate of approximately $1.5 million, $3.0 million and $3.2 million, respectively, from our taxable REIT subsidiary. For a portion of 2007, these amounts include payments related to the Long Wharf Marriott, which was sold by us in March 2007.

Seasonality

Our hotel property traditionally has experienced significant seasonality in its operating income, with the percentage of net operating income by quarter over the year ended December 31, 2009 shown below.


First Quarter	Second Quarter	Third Quarter	Fourth Quarter
9%	32%	19%	40%

Corporate Governance

Boston Properties is currently managed by an eleven member Board of Directors, which is divided into three classes (Class I, Class II and Class III). Our Board of Directors is currently comprised of four Class I directors (Mortimer B. Zuckerman, Carol B. Einiger, Dr. Jacob A. Frenkel and Richard E. Salomon), four Class II directors (Lawrence S. Bacow, Zoë Baird, Alan J. Patricof and Martin Turchin) and three Class III directors (Fredrick J. Iseman, Douglas T. Linde and David A. Twardock). The members of each class of our Board of

Directors serve for staggered three-year terms, and the terms of our current Class I, Class II and Class III directors expire at the annual meetings of stockholders to be held in 2010, 2011 and 2012, respectively.

Currently, each annual meeting of stockholders, directors are elected or re-elected for a full term of three years to succeed those directors whose terms are expiring. However, the Board of Directors has approved an amendment to our Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation that would, among other things, destagger the Board of Directors and provide for the annual election of directors. We intend to submit this amendment to our stockholders for approval at our 2010 annual meeting of stockholders. If this amendment is approved by stockholders, then commencing with the class of directors standing for election at the 2011 annual meeting of stockholders our directors will stand for election for one-year terms expiring at the next succeeding annual meeting of stockholders. Directors elected prior to the 2011 annual meeting of stockholders will continue to serve their full three-year terms.

On October 26, 2009, we announced that Richard E. Salomon has decided that he will not stand for re-election to the Board of Directors upon the conclusion of his term at the 2010 annual meeting of stockholders in order to devote more time to his other business interests. Mr. Salomon has served on our Board of Directors since November 1998, and he currently serves as Chairman of our Compensation Committee. On February 24, 2010, Dr. Jacob A. Frenkel was appointed as a Class I director to serve until the 2010 annual meeting of stockholders.

On January 10, 2010, Edward H. Linde, our Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer, passed away. Mortimer B. Zuckerman, Co-Founder and Chairman of the Board, assumed the duties of Chief Executive Officer. On January 21, 2010, Douglas T. Linde was appointed to fill the vacancy on our Board of Directors resulting from the passing of Mr. E. Linde. Mr. D. Linde also currently serves as our President.

Our Board of Directors has Audit, Compensation and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committees. The membership of each of these committees is described below.


Name of Director	Audit	Compensation	Nominating and Corporate Governance
Lawrence S. Bacow	X
Zoë Baird		X	X*
Carol B. Einiger	X
Fredrick J. Iseman		X
Alan J. Patricof	X*		X
Richard E. Salomon		X*
David A. Twardock		X	X

X=Committee member, *=Chair

•

Our Board of Directors has adopted charters for each of its Audit, Compensation and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committees. The Compensation Committee is comprised of four (4) independent directors. The Audit Committee is comprised of three (3) independent directors, and the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee is comprised of three (3) independent directors. A copy of each of these charters is available on our website at http://www.bostonproperties.com under the heading “Corporate Governance” and subheading “Committees and Charters.”

•

Our Board of Directors has adopted Corporate Governance Guidelines, a copy of which is available on our website at http://www.bostonproperties.com under the heading “Corporate Governance” and subheading “Governance Guidelines.”

•

Our Board of Directors has adopted a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, which governs business decisions made and actions taken by our directors, officers and employees. A copy of this code is

available on our website at http://www.bostonproperties.com under the heading “Corporate Governance” and subheading “Code of Conduct and Ethics.” We intend to disclose on this website any amendment to, or waiver of, any provision of this Code applicable to our directors and executive officers that would otherwise be required to be disclosed under the rules of the SEC or the New York Stock Exchange.

•

Our Board of Directors has established an ethics reporting system that employees may use to anonymously report possible violations of the Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, including concerns regarding questionable accounting, internal accounting controls or auditing matters, by telephone or over the internet.

Item 1A.

Risk Factors.

Set forth below are the risks that we believe are material to our investors. We refer to the shares of our common stock and the units of limited partnership interest in BPLP together as our “securities,” and the investors who own shares or units, or both, as our “securityholders.” This section contains forward-looking statements. You should refer to the explanation of the qualifications and limitations on forward-looking statements beginning on page 44.

Our performance and value are subject to risks associated with our real estate assets and with the real estate industry.

Our economic performance and the value of our real estate assets, and consequently the value of our securities, are subject to the risk that if our office and hotel properties do not generate revenues sufficient to meet our operating expenses, including debt service and capital expenditures, our cash flow and ability to pay distributions to our securityholders will be adversely affected. The following factors, among others, may adversely affect the income generated by our office and hotel properties:

•

downturns in the national, regional and local economic conditions (particularly increases in unemployment);

•

competition from other office, hotel and commercial buildings;

•

local real estate market conditions, such as oversupply or reduction in demand for office, hotel or other commercial space;

•

changes in interest rates and availability of financing;

•

vacancies, changes in market rental rates and the need to periodically repair, renovate and re-let space;

•

increased operating costs, including insurance expense, utilities, real estate taxes, state and local taxes and heightened security costs;

•

civil disturbances, earthquakes and other natural disasters, or terrorist acts or acts of war which may result in uninsured or underinsured losses;

•

significant expenditures associated with each investment, such as debt service payments, real estate taxes, insurance and maintenance costs which are generally not reduced when circumstances cause a reduction in revenues from a property;

•

declines in the financial condition of our tenants and our ability to collect rents from our tenants; and

•

decreases in the underlying value of our real estate.

We are dependent upon the economic climates of our markets—Boston, Washington, DC, midtown Manhattan, San Francisco and Princeton, NJ.

Substantially all of our revenue is derived from properties located in five markets: Boston, Washington, DC, midtown Manhattan, San Francisco and Princeton, NJ. A downturn in the economies of these markets, or the impact that a downturn in the overall national economy may have upon these economies, could result in reduced demand for office space. Because our portfolio consists primarily of office buildings (as compared to a more diversified real estate portfolio), a decrease in demand for office space in turn could adversely affect our results of operations. Additionally, there are submarkets within our markets that are dependent upon a limited number of industries. For example, in our Washington, DC market we focus on leasing office properties to governmental agencies and contractors, as well as legal firms. In our midtown Manhattan market we have historically leased properties to financial, legal and other professional firms. A significant downturn in one or more of these sectors could adversely affect our results of operations.

In addition, a significant economic downturn over a period of time could result in an event or change in circumstances that results in an impairment in the value of our properties. An impairment loss is recognized if the carrying amount of the asset (1) is not recoverable over its expected holding period and (2) exceeds its fair value. There can be no assurance that we will not take charges in the future related to the impairment of our assets. Any future impairment could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations in the period in which the charge is taken.

Our investment in property development may be more costly than anticipated.

We intend to continue to develop and substantially renovate office properties. Our current and future development and construction activities may be exposed to the following risks:

•

we may be unable to proceed with the development of properties because we cannot obtain financing on favorable terms or at all;

•

we may incur construction costs for a development project which exceed our original estimates due to increases in interest rates and increased materials, labor, leasing or other costs, which could make completion of the project less profitable because market rents may not increase sufficiently to compensate for the increase in construction costs;

•

we may be unable to obtain, or face delays in obtaining, required zoning, land-use, building, occupancy, and other governmental permits and authorizations, which could result in increased costs and could require us to abandon our activities entirely with respect to a project;

•

we may abandon development opportunities after we begin to explore them and as a result we may lose deposits or fail to recover expenses already incurred;

•

we may expend funds on and devote management’s time to projects which we do not complete;

•

we may be unable to complete construction and/or leasing of a property on schedule; and

•

we may suspend development projects after construction has begun due to changes in economic conditions or other factors, and this may result in the write-off of costs, payment of additional costs or increases in overall costs when the development project is restarted.

Investment returns from our developed properties may be lower than anticipated.

Our developed properties may be exposed to the following risks:

•

we may lease developed properties at rental rates that are less than the rates projected at the time we decide to undertake the development; and

•

occupancy rates and rents at newly developed properties may fluctuate depending on a number of factors, including market and economic conditions, and may result in our investments being less profitable than we expected or not profitable at all.

We face risks associated with the development of mixed-use commercial properties.

We are currently developing and may in the future develop, properties either alone or through joint ventures with other persons, that are known as “mixed-use” developments. This means that in addition to the development of office space, the project may also include space for residential or other commercial purposes. We have limited experience in developing and managing non-office and non-retail real estate. As a result, if a development project includes a non-office or non-retail use, we may seek to sell the rights to that component to a third-party developer with experience in that use or we may seek to partner with such a developer. If we are not able to sell the rights or partner with such a developer, or if we choose to develop the other component ourselves, we would be exposed not only to those risks typically associated with the development of commercial real estate generally, but

also to specific risks associated with the development and ownership of non-office and non-retail real estate. In addition, even if we sell the rights to develop the other component or elect to participate in the development through a joint venture, we may be exposed to the risks associated with the failure of the other party to complete the development as expected. These include the risk that the other party would default on its obligations necessitating that we complete the other component ourselves (including providing any necessary financing).

We face risks associated with the use of debt to fund acquisitions and developments, including refinancing risk.

We are subject to the risks normally associated with debt financing, including the risk that our cash flow will be insufficient to meet required payments of principal and interest. We anticipate that only a small portion of the principal of our debt will be repaid prior to maturity. Therefore, we are likely to need to refinance at least a portion of our outstanding debt as it matures. There is a risk that we may not be able to refinance existing debt or that the terms of any refinancing will not be as favorable as the terms of our existing debt. If principal payments due at maturity cannot be refinanced, extended or repaid with proceeds from other sources, such as new equity capital, our cash flow may not be sufficient to repay all maturing debt in years when significant “balloon” payments come due. In addition, we may rely on debt to fund a portion of our new investments such as our acquisition and development activity. There is a risk that we may be unable to finance these activities on favorable terms or at all. This risk is currently heightened because the debt market is experiencing volatility, including reduced liquidity and increased credit risk premiums. These conditions, which increase the cost and reduce the availability of debt, may continue or worsen in the future.

We have agreements with a number of limited partners of BPLP who contributed properties in exchange for partnership interests that require BPLP to maintain for specified periods of time secured debt on certain of our assets and/or allocate partnership debt to such limited partners to enable them to continue to defer recognition of their taxable gain with respect to the contributed property. These tax protection and debt allocation agreements may restrict our ability to repay or refinance debt.

Adverse economic and geopolitical conditions and dislocations in the credit markets could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and ability to pay distributions to you.

Our business may be affected by market and economic challenges experienced by the U.S. economy or real estate industry as a whole or by the local economic conditions in the markets in which our properties are located, including the current dislocations in the credit markets and the high rate of unemployment. These current conditions, or similar conditions existing in the future, may adversely affect our results of operations, financial condition and ability to pay distributions as a result of the following, among other potential consequences:

•

the financial condition of our tenants, many of which are financial, legal and other professional firms, may be adversely affected, which may result in tenant defaults under leases due to bankruptcy, lack of liquidity, operational failures or for other reasons;

•

significant job losses in the financial and professional services industries may occur, which may decrease demand for our office space, causing market rental rates and property values to be negatively impacted;

•

our ability to borrow on terms and conditions that we find acceptable, or at all, may be limited, which could reduce our ability to pursue acquisition and development opportunities and refinance existing debt, reduce our returns from our acquisition and development activities and increase our future interest expense;

•

reduced values of our properties may limit our ability to dispose of assets at attractive prices or to obtain debt financing secured by our properties and may reduce the availability of unsecured loans;

•

the value and liquidity of our short-term investments and cash deposits could be reduced as a result of a deterioration of the financial condition of the institutions that hold our cash deposits or the institutions

or assets in which we have made short-term investments, the dislocation of the markets for our short-term investments, increased volatility in market rates for such investments or other factors;

•

one or more lenders under our line of credit could refuse to fund their financing commitment to us or could fail and we may not be able to replace the financing commitment of any such lenders on favorable terms, or at all; and

•

one or more counterparties to our derivative financial instruments could default on their obligations to us, including the capped call transactions we entered into in connection with our offering of our 3.625% exchangeable senior notes due 2014 and any interest hedging contracts we may enter into from time to time, or could fail, increasing the risk that we may not realize the benefits of these instruments.

An increase in interest rates would increase our interest costs on variable rate debt and could adversely impact our ability to refinance existing debt or sell assets on favorable terms or at all.

As of February 19, 2010, we had approximately $394.3 million of indebtedness that bears interest at variable rates, and we may incur more of such indebtedness in the future. If interest rates increase, then so will the interest costs on our unhedged variable rate debt, which could adversely affect our cash flow and our ability to pay principal and interest on our debt and our ability to make distributions to our securityholders. Further, rising interest rates could limit our ability to refinance existing debt when it matures or significantly increase our future interest expense. From time to time, we enter into interest rate swap agreements and other interest rate hedging contracts, including swaps, caps and floors. While these agreements are intended to lessen the impact of rising interest rates on us, they also expose us to the risk that the other parties to the agreements will not perform, we could incur significant costs associated with the settlement of the agreements, the agreements will be unenforceable and the underlying transactions will fail to qualify as highly-effective cash flow hedges under guidance included in Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 815 “Derivatives and Hedging” (formerly known as SFAS No. 133, “Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities, as amended”). In addition, an increase in interest rates could decrease the amount third-parties are willing to pay for our assets, thereby limiting our ability to change our portfolio promptly in response to changes in economic or other conditions.

Covenants in our debt agreements could adversely affect our financial condition.

The mortgages on our properties contain customary covenants such as those that limit our ability, without the prior consent of the lender, to further mortgage the applicable property or to discontinue insurance coverage. Our unsecured credit facility, unsecured debt securities and certain secured loans contain customary restrictions, requirements and other limitations on our ability to incur indebtedness, including total debt to asset ratios, secured debt to total asset ratios, debt service coverage ratios and minimum ratios of unencumbered assets to unsecured debt, which we must maintain. Our continued ability to borrow under our credit facilities is subject to compliance with our financial and other covenants. In addition, our failure to comply with such covenants could cause a default under the applicable debt agreement, and we may then be required to repay such debt with capital from other sources. Under those circumstances, other sources of capital may not be available to us, or be available only on unattractive terms. Additionally, in the future our ability to satisfy current or prospective lenders’ insurance requirements may be adversely affected if lenders generally insist upon greater insurance coverage against acts of terrorism or losses resulting from earthquakes than is available to us in the marketplace or on commercially reasonable terms.

We rely on debt financing, including borrowings under our unsecured credit facility, issuances of unsecured debt securities and debt secured by individual properties, to finance our existing portfolio, our acquisition and development activities and for working capital. If we are unable to obtain debt financing from these or other sources, or to refinance existing indebtedness upon maturity, our financial condition and results of operations would likely be adversely affected. If we breach covenants in our debt agreements, the lenders can declare a default and, if the debt is secured, can take possession of the property securing the defaulted loan. In addition,

our unsecured debt agreements contain specific cross-default provisions with respect to specified other indebtedness, giving the unsecured lenders the right to declare a default if we are in default under other loans in some circumstances. Defaults under our debt agreements could materially and adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

Our degree of leverage could limit our ability to obtain additional financing or affect the market price of our common stock or debt securities.

On February 19, 2010, our total consolidated debt was approximately $6.7 billion (i.e., excluding unconsolidated joint venture debt). Consolidated debt to total consolidated market capitalization ratio, defined as total consolidated debt as a percentage of the market value of our outstanding equity securities plus our total consolidated debt, is a measure of leverage commonly used by analysts in the REIT sector. Our total consolidated market capitalization was approximately $17.5 billion at February 19, 2010. Total consolidated market capitalization was calculated using the closing stock price of $66.57 per common share and the following: (1) 138,965,804 shares of our common stock, (2) 19,816,088 outstanding common units of limited partnership interest in Boston Properties Limited Partnership (excluding common units held by Boston Properties, Inc.), (3) an aggregate of 1,460,688 common units issuable upon conversion of all outstanding Series Two Preferred Units of partnership interest in Boston Properties Limited Partnership, (4) an aggregate of 1,644,313 common units issuable upon conversion of all outstanding LTIP Units, assuming all conditions have been met for the conversion of the LTIP Units, and (5) our consolidated debt totaling approximately $6.7 billion. The calculation of total consolidated market capitalization does not include 1,080,938 2008 OPP Units because, unlike other LTIP Units, they are not earned until certain return thresholds are achieved. Our total consolidated debt, which excludes debt collateralized by our unconsolidated joint ventures, at February 19, 2010 represented approximately 38.31% of our total consolidated market capitalization. This percentage will fluctuate with changes in the market price of our common stock and does not necessarily reflect our capacity to incur additional debt to finance our activities or our ability to manage our existing debt obligations. However, for a company like ours, whose assets are primarily income-producing real estate, the consolidated debt to total consolidated market capitalization ratio may provide investors with an alternate indication of leverage, so long as it is evaluated along with other financial ratios and the various components of our outstanding indebtedness.

Our degree of leverage could affect our ability to obtain additional financing for working capital, capital expenditures, acquisitions, development or other general corporate purposes. Our senior unsecured debt is currently rated investment grade by the three major rating agencies. However, there can be no assurance that we will be able to maintain this rating, and in the event our senior debt is downgraded from its current rating, we would likely incur higher borrowing costs and/or difficulty in obtaining additional financing. Our degree of leverage could also make us more vulnerable to a downturn in business or the economy generally. There is a risk that changes in our debt to market capitalization ratio, which is in part a function of our stock price, or our ratio of indebtedness to other measures of asset value used by financial analysts may have an adverse effect on the market price of our equity or debt securities.

We face risks associated with property acquisitions.

We have acquired in the past and intend to continue to pursue the acquisition of properties and portfolios of properties, including large portfolios that could increase our size and result in alterations to our capital structure. Our acquisition activities and their success are subject to the following risks:

•

even if we enter into an acquisition agreement for a property, we may be unable to complete that acquisition after making a non-refundable deposit and incurring certain other acquisition-related costs;

•

we may be unable to obtain financing for acquisitions on favorable terms or at all;

•

acquired properties may fail to perform as expected;

•

the actual costs of repositioning or redeveloping acquired properties may be greater than our estimates;

•

the acquisition agreement will likely contain conditions to closing, including completion of due diligence investigations to our satisfaction or other conditions that are not within our control, which may not be satisfied;

•

acquired properties may be located in new markets where we may face risks associated with a lack of market knowledge or understanding of the local economy, lack of business relationships in the area and unfamiliarity with local governmental and permitting procedures; and

•

we may be unable to quickly and efficiently integrate new acquisitions, particularly acquisitions of portfolios of properties, into our existing operations, and this could have an adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

We may also seek to acquire properties through the acquisition of first mortgage or mezzanine debt. Investments in these loans must be carefully structured to ensure that we satisfy the various asset and income requirements applicable to REITs. If we fail to structure any such acquisition properly, we could fail to qualify as a REIT. In addition, acquisitions of first mortgage or mezzanine loans subject us to the risks associated with the borrower’s default, including potential bankruptcy, and there may be significant delays and costs associated with the process of foreclosure on collateral securing or supporting these investments. There can be no assurance that we would recover any or all of our investment in the event of such a default or bankruptcy.

We have acquired in the past and in the future may acquire properties or portfolios of properties through tax deferred contribution transactions in exchange for partnership interests in BPLP. This acquisition structure has the effect, among others, of reducing the amount of tax depreciation we can deduct over the tax life of the acquired properties, and typically requires that we agree to protect the contributors’ ability to defer recognition of taxable gain through restrictions on our ability to dispose of the acquired properties and/or the allocation of partnership debt to the contributors to maintain their tax bases. These restrictions could limit our ability to sell an asset at a time, or on terms, that would be favorable absent such restrictions.

Acquired properties may expose us to unknown liability.

We may acquire properties subject to liabilities and without any recourse, or with only limited recourse, against the prior owners or other third parties with respect to unknown liabilities. As a result, if a liability were asserted against us based upon ownership of those properties, we might have to pay substantial sums to settle or contest it, which could adversely affect our results of operations and cash flow. Unknown liabilities with respect to acquired properties might include:

•

liabilities for clean-up of undisclosed environmental contamination;

•

claims by tenants, vendors or other persons against the former owners of the properties;

•

liabilities incurred in the ordinary course of business; and

•

claims for indemnification by general partners, directors, officers and others indemnified by the former owners of the properties.

Competition for acquisitions may result in increased prices for properties.

We plan to continue to acquire properties as we are presented with attractive opportunities. We may face competition for acquisition opportunities with other investors, and this competition may adversely affect us by subjecting us to the following risks:

•

we may be unable to acquire a desired property because of competition from other well-capitalized real estate investors, including publicly traded and private REITs, institutional investment funds and other real estate investors; and

•

even if we are able to acquire a desired property, competition from other real estate investors may significantly increase the purchase price.

Our use of joint ventures may limit our flexibility with jointly owned investments.

In appropriate circumstances, we intend to develop and acquire properties in joint ventures with other persons or entities when circumstances warrant the use of these structures. We currently have twelve joint ventures that are not consolidated with our financial statements. Our share of the aggregate revenue of these joint ventures represented approximately 18.0% of our total revenue (the sum of our total consolidated revenue and our share of such joint venture revenue) for the year ended December 31, 2009. Our participation in joint ventures is subject to the risks that:

•

we could become engaged in a dispute with any of our joint venture partners that might affect our ability to develop or operate a property;

•

our joint ventures are subject to debt and in the current volatile credit markets the refinancing of such debt may require equity capital calls;

•

our joint venture partners may default on their obligations necessitating that we fulfill their obligation ourselves;

•

our joint venture partners may have different objectives than we have regarding the appropriate timing and terms of any sale or refinancing of properties; and

•

our joint venture partners may have competing interests in our markets that could create conflict of interest issues.

Our properties face significant competition.

We face significant competition from developers, owners and operators of office properties and other commercial real estate, including sublease space available from our tenants. Substantially all of our properties face competition from similar properties in the same market. This competition may affect our ability to attract and retain tenants and may reduce the rents we are able to charge. These competing properties may have vacancy rates higher than our properties, which may result in their owners being willing to lease available space at lower rates than the space in our properties.

We face potential difficulties or delays renewing leases or re-leasing space.

We derive most of our income from rent received from our tenants. If a tenant experiences a downturn in its business or other types of financial distress, it may be unable to make timely rental payments. Also, when our tenants decide not to renew their leases or terminate early, we may not be able to re-let the space. Even if tenants decide to renew or lease new space, the terms of renewals or new leases, including the cost of required renovations or concessions to tenants, may be less favorable to us than current lease terms. As a result, our cash flow could decrease and our ability to make distributions to our securityholders could be adversely affected.

We face potential adverse effects from major tenants’ bankruptcies or insolvencies.

The bankruptcy or insolvency of a major tenant may adversely affect the income produced by our properties. Our tenants could file for bankruptcy protection or become insolvent in the future. We cannot evict a tenant solely because of its bankruptcy. On the other hand, a bankrupt tenant may reject and terminate its lease with us. In such case, our claim against the bankrupt tenant for unpaid and future rent would be subject to a statutory cap that might be substantially less than the remaining rent actually owed under the lease, and, even so, our claim for unpaid rent would likely not be paid in full. This shortfall could adversely affect our cash flow and results of operations.

We may have difficulty selling our properties, which may limit our flexibility.

Large and high-quality office and hotel properties like the ones that we own could be difficult to sell. This may limit our ability to change our portfolio promptly in response to changes in economic or other conditions. In

addition, federal tax laws limit our ability to sell properties and this may affect our ability to sell properties without adversely affecting returns to our securityholders. These restrictions reduce our ability to respond to changes in the performance of our investments and could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

Our ability to dispose of some of our properties is constrained by their tax attributes. Properties which we developed and have owned for a significant period of time or which we acquired through tax deferred contribution transactions in exchange for partnership interests in BPLP often have low tax bases. Furthermore, as a REIT, we may be subject to a 100% “prohibited transactions” tax on the gain from dispositions of property if we are deemed to hold the property primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business, unless the disposition qualifies under a safe harbor exception for properties that have been held for at least two years and with respect to which certain other requirements are met. The potential application of the prohibited transactions tax could cause us to forego potential dispositions of property or other opportunities that might otherwise be attractive to us, or to undertake such dispositions or other opportunities through a taxable REIT subsidiary, which would generally result in income taxes being incurred. If we dispose of these properties outright in taxable transactions, we may be required to distribute a significant amount of the taxable gain to our securityholders under the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code for REITs, which in turn would impact our cash flow and increase our leverage. In some cases, without incurring additional costs we may be restricted from disposing of properties contributed in exchange for our partnership interests under tax protection agreements with contributors. To dispose of low basis or tax-protected properties efficiently we from time to time use like-kind exchanges, which qualify for non-recognition of taxable gain, but can be difficult to consummate and result in the property for which the disposed assets are exchanged inheriting their low tax bases and other tax attributes (including tax protection covenants).

Because we own a hotel property, we face the risks associated with the hospitality industry.

Because the lease payments we receive under our hotel lease are based on a participation in the gross receipts of the hotel, if the hotel does not generate sufficient receipts, our cash flow would be decreased, which could reduce the amount of cash available for distribution to our securityholders. The following factors, among others, are common to the hotel industry, and may reduce the receipts generated by our hotel property:

•

our hotel property competes for guests with other hotels, a number of which have greater marketing and financial resources than our hotel-operating business partners;

•

if there is an increase in operating costs resulting from inflation and other factors, our hotel-operating business partners may not be able to offset such increase by increasing room rates;

•

our hotel property is subject to the fluctuating and seasonal demands of business travelers and tourism; and

•

our hotel property is subject to general and local economic and social conditions that may affect demand for travel in general, including war and terrorism.

In addition, because our hotel property is located in Cambridge, Massachusetts, it is subject to the Cambridge market’s fluctuations in demand, increases in operating costs and increased competition from additions in supply.

We face risks associated with short-term liquid investments.

We continue to have significant cash balances that we invest in a variety of short-term investments that are intended to preserve principal value and maintain a high degree of liquidity while providing current income. From time to time, these investments may include (either directly or indirectly):

•

direct obligations issued by the U.S. Treasury;

•

obligations issued or guaranteed by the U.S. government or its agencies;

•

taxable municipal securities;

•

obligations (including certificates of deposit) of banks and thrifts;

•

commercial paper and other instruments consisting of short-term U.S. dollar denominated obligations issued by corporations and banks;

•

repurchase agreements collateralized by corporate and asset-backed obligations;

•

both registered and unregistered money market funds; and

•

other highly rated short-term securities.

Investments in these securities and funds are not insured against loss of principal. Under certain circumstances we may be required to redeem all or part of our investment, and our right to redeem some or all of our investment may be delayed or suspended. In addition, there is no guarantee that our investments in these securities or funds will be redeemable at par value. A decline in the value of our investment or a delay or suspension of our right to redeem may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition.

Failure to qualify as a real estate investment trust would cause us to be taxed as a corporation, which would substantially reduce funds available for payment of dividends.

If we fail to qualify as a real estate investment trust, or REIT, for federal income tax purposes, we will be taxed as a corporation unless certain relief provisions apply. We believe that we are organized and qualified as a REIT and intend to operate in a manner that will allow us to continue to qualify as a REIT. However, we cannot assure you that we are qualified as such, or that we will remain qualified as such in the future. This is because qualification as a REIT involves the application of highly technical and complex provisions of the Internal Revenue Code as to which there are only limited judicial and administrative interpretations and involves the determination of facts and circumstances not entirely within our control. Future legislation, new regulations, administrative interpretations or court decisions may significantly change the tax laws or the application of the tax laws with respect to qualification as a REIT for federal income tax purposes or the federal income tax consequences of such qualification.

In addition, we currently hold certain of our properties, and the Value-Added Fund holds its properties, through a subsidiary that has elected to be taxed as a REIT and we may in the future determine that it is in our best interests to hold one or more of our other properties through one or more subsidiaries that elect to be taxed as REITs. If any of these subsidiaries fails to qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes, then we may also fail to qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes.

If we fail to qualify as a REIT then, unless certain relief provisions apply, we will face serious tax consequences that will substantially reduce the funds available for payment of dividends for each of the years involved because:

•

we would not be allowed a deduction for dividends paid to stockholders in computing our taxable income and would be subject to federal income tax at regular corporate rates;

•

we also could be subject to the federal alternative minimum tax and possibly increased state and local taxes;

•

unless we are entitled to relief under statutory provisions, we could not elect to be subject to tax as a REIT for four taxable years following the year during which we were disqualified; and

•

all dividends will be subject to tax as ordinary income to the extent of our current and accumulated earnings and profits.

In addition, if we fail to qualify as a REIT and the relief provisions do not apply, we will no longer be required to pay dividends. As a result of all these factors, our failure to qualify as a REIT could impair our ability to expand our business and raise capital, and it would adversely affect the value of our common stock. If we fail to qualify as a REIT but are eligible for certain relief provisions, then we may retain our status as a REIT but may be required to pay a penalty tax, which could be substantial.

In order to maintain our REIT status, we may be forced to borrow funds during unfavorable market conditions or to pay taxable dividends of our common stock.

In order to maintain our REIT status, we may need to borrow funds on a short-term basis to meet the REIT distribution requirements, even if the then-prevailing market conditions are not favorable for these borrowings or, alternatively, for 2010 or 2011, we could pay a taxable stock dividend. To qualify as REIT, we generally must distribute to our stockholders at least 90% of our net taxable income each year, excluding capital gains. In addition, we will be subject to a 4% nondeductible excise tax on the amount, if any, by which dividends paid by us in any calendar year are less than the sum of 85% of our ordinary income, 95% of our capital gain net income and 100% of our undistributed income from prior years. We may need short-term debt or long-term debt or proceeds from asset sales, creation of joint ventures or sales of common stock to fund required distributions as a result of differences in timing between the actual receipt of income and the recognition of income for federal income tax purposes, or the effect of non-deductible capital expenditures, the creation of reserves or required debt or amortization payments. The inability of our cash flows to cover our distribution requirements could have an adverse impact on our ability to raise short—and long-term debt or sell equity securities in order to fund distributions required to maintain our REIT status. Alternatively, under recent IRS guidance that is effective through 2011, we may elect to distribute taxable dividends that are payable up to 90% in the form of our common stock (with the remainder payable in cash). In this event, shareholders will be required to include the full amount of the dividend in income, and shareholder’s tax liability could exceed the cash portion of their dividend.

Limits on changes in control may discourage takeover attempts beneficial to stockholders.

Provisions in our certificate of incorporation and bylaws, our shareholder rights agreement and the limited partnership agreement of BPLP, as well as provisions of the Internal Revenue Code and Delaware corporate law, may:

•

delay or prevent a change of control over us or a tender offer, even if such action might be beneficial to our stockholders; and

•

limit our stockholders’ opportunity to receive a potential premium for their shares of common stock over then-prevailing market prices.

Stock Ownership Limit

To facilitate maintenance of our qualification as a REIT and to otherwise address concerns relating to concentration of capital stock ownership, our certificate of incorporation generally prohibits ownership, directly, indirectly or beneficially, by any single stockholder of more than 6.6% of the number of outstanding shares of any class or series of our common stock. We refer to this limitation as the “ownership limit.” Our Board of Directors may waive, in its sole discretion, or modify the ownership limit with respect to one or more persons if it is satisfied that ownership in excess of this limit will not jeopardize our status as a REIT for federal income tax purposes. In addition, under our certificate of incorporation each of Mortimer B. Zuckerman and Edward H. Linde, along with their respective families and affiliates, as well as, in general, pension plans and mutual funds, may actually and beneficially own up to 15% of the number of outstanding shares of any class or series of our equity common stock. Shares owned in violation of the ownership limit will be subject to the loss of rights to distributions and voting and other penalties. The ownership limit may have the effect of inhibiting or impeding a change in control.

BPLP’s Partnership Agreement

We have agreed in the limited partnership agreement of BPLP not to engage in specified extraordinary transactions, including, among others, business combinations, unless limited partners of BPLP other than Boston Properties, Inc. receive, or have the opportunity to receive, either (1) the same consideration for their partnership interests as holders of our common stock in the transaction or (2) limited partnership units that, among other things, would entitle the holders, upon redemption of these units, to receive shares of common equity of a publicly traded company or the same consideration as holders of our common stock received in the transaction. If these limited partners would not receive such consideration, we cannot engage in the transaction unless limited partners holding at least 75% of the common units of limited partnership interest, other than those held by Boston Properties, Inc. or its affiliates, consent to the transaction. In addition, we have agreed in the limited partnership agreement of BPLP that we will not complete specified extraordinary transactions, including among others, business combinations, in which we receive the approval of our common stockholders unless (1) limited partners holding at least 75% of the common units of limited partnership interest, other than those held by Boston Properties, Inc. or its affiliates, consent to the transaction or (2) the limited partners of BPLP are also allowed to vote and the transaction would have been approved had these limited partners been able to vote as common stockholders on the transaction. Therefore, if our common stockholders approve a specified extraordinary transaction, the partnership agreement requires the following before we can complete the transaction:

•

holders of partnership interests in BPLP, including Boston Properties, Inc., must vote on the matter;

•

Boston Properties, Inc. must vote its partnership interests in the same proportion as our stockholders voted on the transaction; and

•

the result of the vote of holders of partnership interests in BPLP must be such that had such vote been a vote of stockholders, the business combination would have been approved.

As a result of these provisions, a potential acquirer may be deterred from making an acquisition proposal, and we may be prohibited by contract from engaging in a proposed extraordinary transaction, including a proposed business combination, even though our stockholders approve of the transaction.

Shareholder Rights Plan

We have a shareholder rights plan. Under the terms of this plan, we can in effect prevent a person or group from acquiring more than 15% of the outstanding shares of our common stock because, unless we approve of the acquisition, after the person acquires more than 15% of our outstanding common stock, all other stockholders will have the right to purchase securities from us at a price that is less than their then fair market value. This would substantially reduce the value and influence of the stock owned by the acquiring person. Our Board of Directors can prevent the plan from operating by approving the transaction in advance, which gives us significant power to approve or disapprove of the efforts of a person or group to acquire a large interest in our company.

Changes in market conditions could adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

As with other publicly traded equity securities, the value of our common stock depends on various market conditions that may change from time to time. Among the market conditions that may affect the value of our common stock are the following:

•

the extent of investor interest in our securities;

•

the general reputation of REITs and the attractiveness of our equity securities in comparison to other equity securities, including securities issued by other real estate-based companies;

•

our underlying asset value;

•

investor confidence in the stock and bond markets, generally;

•

national economic conditions;

•

changes in tax laws;

•

our financial performance;

•

changes in our credit ratings; and

•

general stock and bond market conditions.

The market value of our common stock is based primarily upon the market’s perception of our growth potential and our current and potential future earnings and cash dividends. Consequently, our common stock may trade at prices that are greater or less than our net asset value per share of common stock. If our future earnings or cash dividends are less than expected, it is likely that the market price of our common stock will diminish.

Further issuances of equity securities may be dilutive to current securityholders.

The interests of our existing securityholders could be diluted if additional equity securities are issued to finance future developments, acquisitions, or repay indebtedness. Our ability to execute our business strategy depends on our access to an appropriate blend of debt financing, including unsecured lines of credit and other forms of secured and unsecured debt, and equity financing, including common and preferred equity.

The number of shares available for future sale could adversely affect the market price of our stock.

In connection with and subsequent to our initial public offering, we have completed many private placement transactions in which shares of capital stock of Boston Properties, Inc. or partnership interests in BPLP were issued to owners of properties we acquired or to institutional investors. This common stock, or common stock issuable in exchange for such partnership interests in BPLP, may be sold in the public securities markets over time under registration rights we granted to these investors. Additional common stock issuable under our employee benefit and other incentive plans, including as a result of the grant of stock options and restricted equity securities, may also be sold in the market at some time in the future. Future sales of our common stock in the market could adversely affect the price of our common stock. We cannot predict the effect the perception in the market that such sales may occur will have on the market price of our common stock.

We may change our policies without obtaining the approval of our stockholders.

Our operating and financial policies, including our policies with respect to acquisitions of real estate, growth, operations, indebtedness, capitalization and dividends, are exclusively determined by our Board of Directors. Accordingly, our securityholders do not control these policies.

Our success depends on key personnel whose continued service is not guaranteed.

We depend on the efforts of key personnel, particularly Mortimer B. Zuckerman, Chairman of our Board and Chief Executive Officer, and Douglas T. Linde, our President. Among the reasons that Messrs. Zuckerman and D. Linde are important to our success is that each has a national reputation, which attracts business and investment opportunities and assists us in negotiations with lenders, joint venture partners and other investors. If we lost their services, our relationships with lenders, potential tenants and industry personnel could diminish. Mr. Zuckerman has substantial outside business interests that could interfere with his ability to devote his full time to our business and affairs.

Our two Executive Vice Presidents and five Regional Managers also have strong reputations. Their reputations aid us in identifying opportunities, having opportunities brought to us, and negotiating with tenants and build-to-suit prospects. While we believe that we could find replacements for these key personnel, the loss of

their services could materially and adversely affect our operations because of diminished relationships with lenders, prospective tenants and industry personnel.

Conflicts of interest exist with holders of interests in BPLP.

Sales of properties and repayment of related indebtedness will have different effects on holders of interests in BPLP than on our stockholders.

Some holders of interests in BPLP, including Mr. Zuckerman and the estate of Mr. E. Linde, would incur adverse tax consequences upon the sale of certain of our properties and on the repayment of related debt which differ from the tax consequences to us and our stockholders. Consequently, these holders of partnership interests in BPLP may have different objectives regarding the appropriate pricing and timing of any such sale or repayment of debt. While we have exclusive authority under the limited partnership agreement of BPLP to determine when to refinance or repay debt or whether, when, and on what terms to sell a property, subject, in the case of certain properties, to the contractual commitments described below, any such decision would require the approval of our Board of Directors. While the Board of Directors has a policy with respect to these matters, as directors and executive officers, Messrs. Zuckerman and D. Linde could exercise their influence in a manner inconsistent with the interests of some, or a majority, of our stockholders, including in a manner which could prevent completion of a sale of a property or the repayment of indebtedness.

Agreement not to sell some properties.

We have entered into agreements with respect to some properties that we have acquired in exchange for partnership interests in BPLP. Pursuant to those agreements, we have agreed not to sell or otherwise transfer some of our properties, prior to specified dates, in any transaction that would trigger taxable income and we are responsible for the reimbursement of certain tax-related costs to the prior owners if the subject properties are sold in a taxable sale. In general, our obligations to the prior owners are limited in time and only apply to actual damages suffered. As of December 31, 2009 there were a total of five properties subject to these restrictions. In the aggregate, all properties subject to the restrictions accounted for approximately 25% of our total revenue for the year ended December 31, 2009.

BPLP has also entered into agreements providing prior owners of properties with the right to guarantee specific amounts of indebtedness and, in the event that the specific indebtedness they guarantee is repaid or reduced, additional and/or substitute indebtedness. These agreements may hinder actions that we may otherwise desire to take to repay or refinance guaranteed indebtedness because we would be required to make payments to the beneficiaries of such agreements if we violate these agreements.

Mr. Zuckerman will continue to engage in other activities.

Mr. Zuckerman has a broad and varied range of investment interests. He could acquire an interest in a company which is not currently involved in real estate investment activities but which may acquire real property in the future. However, pursuant to his employment agreement, Mr. Zuckerman will not, in general, have management control over such companies and, therefore, he may not be able to prevent one or more of such companies from engaging in activities that are in competition with our activities.

Compliance or failure to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act or other safety regulations and requirements could result in substantial costs.

The Americans with Disabilities Act generally requires that public buildings, including office buildings and hotels, be made accessible to disabled persons. Noncompliance could result in the imposition of fines by the federal government or the award of damages to private litigants. If, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, we are required to make substantial alterations and capital expenditures in one or more of our properties,

including the removal of access barriers, it could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations, as well as the amount of cash available for distribution to our securityholders.

Our properties are subject to various federal, state and local regulatory requirements, such as state and local fire and life safety requirements. If we fail to comply with these requirements, we could incur fines or private damage awards. We do not know whether existing requirements will change or whether compliance with future requirements will require significant unanticipated expenditures that will affect our cash flow and results of operations.

Some potential losses are not covered by insurance.

We carry insurance coverage on our properties of types and in amounts and with deductibles that we believe are in line with coverage customarily obtained by owners of similar properties. In response to the uncertainty in the insurance market following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Federal Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (as amended, “TRIA”) was enacted in November 2002 to require regulated insurers to make available coverage for “certified” acts of terrorism (as defined by the statute). The expiration date of TRIA was extended to December 31, 2014 by the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 (“TRIPRA”). Currently, the per occurrence limits of our portfolio property insurance program are $1.0 billion, including coverage for acts of terrorism certified under TRIA. We currently insure certain properties, including the General Motors Building located at 767 Fifth Avenue in New York, New York (“767 Fifth Avenue”), in a separate stand alone insurance program. The property insurance program per occurrence limits for 767 Fifth Avenue are $1.625 billion, including coverage for acts of terrorism certified under TRIA, with $1.375 billion of coverage for losses in excess of $250 million being provided by NYXP, LLC, as a direct insurer. We also currently carry nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological terrorism insurance coverage (“NBCR Coverage”) for acts of terrorism certified under TRIA, which is provided by IXP, LLC as a direct insurer, for the properties in our portfolio, including 767 Fifth Avenue, but excluding the properties owned by our Value-Added Fund and certain other properties owned in joint ventures with third parties or which we manage. The per occurrence limit for NBCR Coverage is $1 billion. Under TRIA, after the payment of the required deductible and coinsurance, the NBCR Coverage is backstopped by the Federal Government if the aggregate industry insured losses resulting from a certified act of terrorism exceed a “program trigger.” The program trigger is $100 million and the coinsurance is 15%. Under TRIPRA, if the Federal Government pays out for a loss under TRIA, it is mandatory that the Federal Government recoup the full amount of the loss from insurers offering TRIA coverage after the payment of the loss pursuant to a formula in TRIPRA. We may elect to terminate the NBCR Coverage if the Federal Government seeks recoupment for losses paid under TRIA, if there is a change in our portfolio or for any other reason. We intend to continue to monitor the scope, nature and cost of available terrorism insurance and maintain insurance in amounts and on terms that are commercially reasonable.

We also currently carry earthquake insurance on our properties located in areas known to be subject to earthquakes in an amount and subject to self-insurance that we believe are commercially reasonable. In addition, this insurance is subject to a deductible in the amount of 5% of the value of the affected property. Specifically, we currently carry earthquake insurance which covers our San Francisco region with a $120 million per occurrence limit and a $120 million annual aggregate limit, $20 million of which is provided by IXP LLC, as a direct insurer. The amount of our earthquake insurance coverage may not be sufficient to cover losses from earthquakes. In addition, the amount of earthquake coverage could impact our ability to finance properties subject to earthquake risk. We may discontinue earthquake insurance on some or all of our properties in the future if the premiums exceed our estimation of the value of the coverage.

IXP LLC, (“IXP”), a captive insurance company which is a wholly-owned subsidiary, acts as a direct insurer with respect to a portion of our earthquake insurance coverage for our Greater San Francisco properties and our NBCR Coverage for acts of terrorism certified under TRIA. NYXP, LLC (“NYXP”), a captive insurance company which is a wholly-owned subsidiary, acts as a direct insurer with respect to a portion of our coverage for acts of terrorism certified under TRIA for 767 Fifth Avenue. Currently, NYXP only insures losses which

exceed the program trigger under TRIA and NYXP reinsures with a third-party insurance company any coinsurance payable under TRIA. Insofar as we own IXP and NYXP, we are responsible for their liquidity and capital resources, and the accounts of IXP and NYXP are part of our consolidated financial statements. In particular, if a loss occurs which is covered by our NBCR Coverage but is less than the applicable program trigger under TRIA, IXP would be responsible for the full amount of the loss without any backstop by the Federal Government. IXP and NYXP would also be responsible for any recoupment charges by the Federal Government in the event losses are paid out and their insurance policies are maintained after the payout by the Federal Government. If we experience a loss and IXP or NYXP are required to pay under their insurance policies, we would ultimately record the loss to the extent of the required payment. Therefore, insurance coverage provided by IXP and NYXP should not be considered as the equivalent of third-party insurance, but rather as a modified form of self-insurance.

The mortgages on our properties typically contain requirements concerning the financial ratings of the insurers who provide policies covering the property. We provide the lenders on a regular basis with the identity of the insurance companies in our insurance programs. The ratings of some of our insurers are below the rating requirements in some of our loan agreements and the lenders for these loans could attempt to claim an event of default has occurred under the loan. We believe we could obtain insurance with insurers which satisfy the rating requirements. Additionally, in the future our ability to obtain debt financing secured by individual properties, or the terms of such financing, may be adversely affected if lenders generally insist on ratings for insurers which are difficult to obtain or which result in a commercially unreasonable premium. There can be no assurance that a deficiency in the financial ratings of one or more of our insurers will not have a material adverse effect on us.

We continue to monitor the state of the insurance market in general, and the scope and costs of coverage for acts of terrorism and California earthquake risk in particular, but we cannot anticipate what coverage will be available on commercially reasonable terms in future policy years. There are other types of losses, such as from wars or the presence of mold at our properties, for which we cannot obtain insurance at all or at a reasonable cost. With respect to such losses and losses from acts of terrorism, earthquakes or other catastrophic events, if we experience a loss that is uninsured or that exceeds policy limits, we could lose the capital invested in the damaged properties, as well as the anticipated future revenues from those properties. Depending on the specific circumstances of each affected property, it is possible that we could be liable for mortgage indebtedness or other obligations related to the property. Any such loss could materially and adversely affect our business and financial condition and results of operations.

Actual or threatened terrorist attacks may adversely affect our ability to generate revenues and the value of our properties.

We have significant investments in large metropolitan markets that have been or may be in the future the targets of actual or threatened terrorism attacks, including midtown Manhattan, Washington, DC, Boston and San Francisco. As a result, some tenants in these markets may choose to relocate their businesses to other markets or to lower-profile office buildings within these markets that may be perceived to be less likely targets of future terrorist activity. This could result in an overall decrease in the demand for office space in these markets generally or in our properties in particular, which could increase vacancies in our properties or necessitate that we lease our properties on less favorable terms or both. In addition, future terrorist attacks in these markets could directly or indirectly damage our properties, both physically and financially, or cause losses that materially exceed our insurance coverage. As a result of the foregoing, our ability to generate revenues and the value of our properties could decline materially. See also “—Some potential losses are not covered by insurance.”

We face risks associated with our tenants being designated “Prohibited Persons” by the Office of Foreign Assets Control.

Pursuant to Executive Order 13224 and other laws, the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the United States Department of the Treasury (“OFAC”) maintains a list of persons designated as terrorists or who are otherwise

blocked or banned (“Prohibited Persons”). OFAC regulations and other laws prohibit conducting business or engaging in transactions with Prohibited Persons (the “OFAC Requirements”). Certain of our loan and other agreements require us to comply with OFAC Requirements. We have established a compliance program whereby tenants and others with whom we conduct business are checked against the OFAC list of Prohibited Persons prior to entering into any agreement and on a periodic basis thereafter. Our leases and other agreements require the other party to comply with OFAC Requirements. If a tenant or other party with whom we contract is placed on the OFAC list we may be required by the OFAC Requirements to terminate the lease or other agreement. Any such termination could result in a loss of revenue or a damage claim by the other party that the termination was wrongful.

We face possible risks associated with the physical effects of climate change.

We cannot predict with certainty whether climate change is occurring and, if so, at what rate. However, the physical effects of climate change could have a material adverse effect on our properties, operations and business. For example, many of our properties are located along the East and West coasts, particularly those in the Central Business Districts of Midtown Manhattan, Boston and San Francisco. To the extent climate change causes changes in weather patterns, our markets could experience increases in storm intensity and rising sea-levels. Over time, these conditions could result in declining demand for office space in our buildings or the inability of us to operate the buildings at all. Climate change may also have indirect effects on our business by increasing the cost of (or making unavailable) property insurance on terms we find acceptable, increasing the cost of energy and increasing the cost of snow removal at our properties. There can be no assurance that climate change will not have a material adverse effect on our properties, operations or business.

Potential liability for environmental contamination could result in substantial costs.

Under federal, state and local environmental laws, ordinances and regulations, we may be required to investigate and clean up the effects of releases of hazardous or toxic substances or petroleum products at our properties simply because of our current or past ownership or operation of the real estate. If unidentified environmental problems arise, we may have to make substantial payments, which could adversely affect our cash flow and our ability to make distributions to our securityholders, because:

•

as owner or operator we may have to pay for property damage and for investigation and clean-up costs incurred in connection with the contamination;

•

the law typically imposes clean-up responsibility and liability regardless of whether the owner or operator knew of or caused the contamination;

•

even if more than one person may be responsible for the contamination, each person who shares legal liability under the environmental laws may be held responsible for all of the clean-up costs; and

•

governmental entities and third parties may sue the owner or operator of a contaminated site for damages and costs.

These costs could be substantial and in extreme cases could exceed the amount of our insurance or the value of the contaminated property. We currently carry environmental insurance in an amount and subject to deductibles that we believe are commercially reasonable. Specifically, we carry a pollution legal liability policy with a $10 million limit per incident and a policy aggregate limit of $30 million. The presence of hazardous or toxic substances or petroleum products or the failure to properly remediate contamination may materially and adversely affect our ability to borrow against, sell or rent an affected property. In addition, applicable environmental laws create liens on contaminated sites in favor of the government for damages and costs it incurs in connection with a contamination. Changes in laws increasing the potential liability for environmental conditions existing at our properties, or increasing the restrictions on the handling, storage or discharge of hazardous or toxic substances or petroleum products or other actions may result in significant unanticipated expenditures.

Environmental laws also govern the presence, maintenance and removal of asbestos. Such laws require that owners or operators of buildings containing asbestos:

•

properly manage and maintain the asbestos;

•

notify and train those who may come into contact with asbestos; and

•

undertake special precautions, including removal or other abatement, if asbestos would be disturbed during renovation or demolition of a building.

Such laws may impose fines and penalties on building owners or operators who fail to comply with these requirements and may allow third parties to seek recovery from owners or operators for personal injury associated with exposure to asbestos fibers.

Some of our properties are located in urban and previously developed areas where fill or current or historic industrial uses of the areas have caused site contamination. It is our policy to retain independent environmental consultants to conduct or update Phase I environmental site assessments and asbestos surveys with respect to our acquisition of properties. These assessments generally include a visual inspection of the properties and the surrounding areas, an examination of current and historical uses of the properties and the surrounding areas and a review of relevant state, federal and historical documents, but do not involve invasive techniques such as soil and ground water sampling. Where appropriate, on a property-by-property basis, our practice is to have these consultants conduct additional testing, including sampling for asbestos, for lead in drinking water, for soil contamination where underground storage tanks are or were located or where other past site usage creates a potential environmental problem, and for contamination in groundwater. Even though these environmental assessments are conducted, there is still the risk that:

•

the environmental assessments and updates did not identify all potential environmental liabilities;

•

a prior owner created a material environmental condition that is not known to us or the independent consultants preparing the assessments;

•

new environmental liabilities have developed since the environmental assessments were conducted; and

•

future uses or conditions such as changes in applicable environmental laws and regulations could result in environmental liability for us.

Inquiries about indoor air quality may necessitate special investigation and, depending on the results, remediation beyond our regular indoor air quality testing and maintenance programs. Indoor air quality issues can stem from inadequate ventilation, chemical contaminants from indoor or outdoor sources, and biological contaminants such as molds, pollen, viruses and bacteria. Indoor exposure to chemical or biological contaminants above certain levels can be alleged to be connected to allergic reactions or other health effects and symptoms in susceptible individuals. If these conditions were to occur at one of our properties, we may need to undertake a targeted remediation program, including without limitation, steps to increase indoor ventilation rates and eliminate sources of contaminants. Such remediation programs could be costly, necessitate the temporary relocation of some or all of the property’s tenants or require rehabilitation of the affected property.

We did not obtain new owner’s title insurance policies in connection with properties acquired during our initial public offering.

We acquired many of our properties from our predecessors at the completion of our initial public offering in June 1997. Before we acquired these properties, each of them was insured by a title insurance policy. We did not obtain new owner’s title insurance policies in connection with the acquisition of these properties. However, to the extent we have financed properties after acquiring them in connection with the initial public offering, we have obtained new title insurance policies, however, the amount of these policies may be less than the current or future value of the applicable properties. Nevertheless, because in many instances we acquired these properties

indirectly by acquiring ownership of the entity that owned the property and those owners remain in existence as our subsidiaries, some of these title insurance policies may continue to benefit us. Many of these title insurance policies may be for amounts less than the current or future values of the applicable properties. If there was a title defect related to any of these properties, or to any of the properties acquired at the time of our initial public offering, that is no longer covered by a title insurance policy, we could lose both our capital invested in and our anticipated profits from such property. We have obtained title insurance policies for all properties that we have acquired after our initial public offering, however, these policies may be for amounts less than the current or future values of the applicable properties.

Because of the ownership structure of our hotel property, we face potential adverse effects from changes to the applicable tax laws.

We own one hotel property. However, under the Internal Revenue Code, REITs like us are not allowed to operate hotels directly or indirectly. Accordingly, we lease our hotel property to one of our taxable REIT subsidiaries. As lessor, we are entitled to a percentage of the gross receipts from the operation of the hotel property. Marriott International, Inc. manages the hotel under the Marriott name pursuant to a management contract with the taxable REIT subsidiary as lessee. While the taxable REIT subsidiary structure allows the economic benefits of ownership to flow to us, the taxable REIT subsidiary is subject to tax on its income from the operations of the hotel at the federal and state level. In addition, the taxable REIT subsidiary is subject to detailed tax regulations that affect how it may be capitalized and operated. If the tax laws applicable to taxable REIT subsidiaries are modified, we may be forced to modify the structure for owning our hotel property, and such changes may adversely affect the cash flows from our hotel. In addition, the Internal Revenue Service, the United States Treasury Department and Congress frequently review federal income tax legislation, and we cannot predict whether, when or to what extent new federal tax laws, regulations, interpretations or rulings will be adopted. Any of such actions may prospectively or retroactively modify the tax treatment of the taxable REIT subsidiary and, therefore, may adversely affect our after-tax returns from our hotel property.

We face possible adverse changes in tax laws.

From time to time changes in state and local tax laws or regulations are enacted, which may result in an increase in our tax liability. A shortfall in tax revenues for states and municipalities in which we operate may lead to an increase in the frequency and size of such changes. If such changes occur, we may be required to pay additional taxes on our assets or income. These increased tax costs could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations and the amount of cash available for the payment of dividends.

We face possible state and local tax audits.

Because we are organized and qualify as a REIT, we are generally not subject to federal income taxes, but are subject to certain state and local taxes. In the normal course of business, certain entities through which we own real estate either have undergone, or are currently undergoing, tax audits. Although we believe that we have substantial arguments in favor of our positions in the ongoing audits, in some instances there is no controlling precedent or interpretive guidance on the specific point at issue. Collectively, tax deficiency notices received to date from the jurisdictions conducting the ongoing audits have not been material. However, there can be no assurance that future audits will not occur with increased frequency or that the ultimate result of such audits will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

Item 1B.

Unresolved Staff Comments.

None.

Item 2.

Properties

At December 31, 2009, our portfolio consisted of 146 properties totaling approximately 37.7 million net rentable square feet and structured parking for vehicles containing approximately 12.8 million square feet. Our properties consisted of (1) 140 office properties, including 120 Class A office buildings, including three properties under construction, and 20 properties that support both office and technical uses, (2) three retail properties, (3) one hotel and (4) two residential properties (both of which are under construction). In addition, we own or control 510.1 acres of land for future development. The table set forth below shows information relating to the properties we owned, or in which we had an ownership interest, at December 31, 2009. Information relating to properties owned by the Value-Added Fund is not included in our portfolio information tables or any other portfolio level statistics because the Value-Added Fund invests in assets within our existing markets that have deficiencies in property characteristics which provide an opportunity to create value through repositioning, refurbishment or renovation. We therefore believe including such information in our portfolio tables and statistics would render the portfolio information less useful to investors. Information relating to the Value-Added Fund is set forth separately below.


Properties	Location	% Leased		Number of Buildings	Net Rentable Square Feet
Class A Office
General Motors Building (60% ownership)	New York, NY	98.1	%	1	1,777,639
399 Park Avenue	New York, NY	95.6	%	1	1,712,223
601 Lexington Avenue (formerly known as Citigroup Center)	New York, NY	88.8	%	1	1,613,406
Times Square Tower	New York, NY	99.7	%	1	1,243,298
800 Boylston Street—The Prudential Center	Boston, MA	96.6	%	1	1,192,675
599 Lexington Avenue	New York, NY	95.4	%	1	1,039,158
Embarcadero Center Four	San Francisco, CA	93.7	%	1	936,260
111 Huntington Avenue—The Prudential Center	Boston, MA	99.6	%	1	859,642
Embarcadero Center One	San Francisco, CA	86.8	%	1	833,723
Embarcadero Center Two	San Francisco, CA	97.9	%	1	779,768
Embarcadero Center Three	San Francisco, CA	84.7	%	1	775,086
South of Market	Reston, VA	91.8	%	3	648,279
Two Grand Central Tower (60% ownership)	New York, NY	94.5	%	1	637,482
Capital Gallery	Washington, DC	100.0	%	1	621,009
Metropolitan Square (51% ownership)	Washington, DC	99.9	%	1	586,885
125 West 55^th Street (60% ownership)	New York, NY	100.0	%	1	566,952
3200 Zanker Road	San Jose, CA	100.0	%	4	543,900
901 New York Avenue (25% ownership)	Washington, DC	99.4	%	1	539,229
Reservoir Place	Waltham, MA	94.6	%	1	526,386
601 and 651 Gateway	South San Francisco, CA	83.4	%	2	506,168
101 Huntington Avenue—The Prudential Center	Boston, MA	99.4	%	1	505,939
Two Freedom Square	Reston, VA	99.4	%	1	421,253
One Freedom Square	Reston, VA	94.2	%	1	414,433
One Tower Center	East Brunswick, NJ	40.8	%	1	413,677
Market Square North (50% ownership)	Washington, DC	98.3	%	1	401,279
140 Kendrick Street	Needham, MA	100.0	%	3	380,987
One and Two Discovery Square	Reston, VA	100.0	%	2	366,990
505 9^th Street, N.W. (50% ownership)	Washington, DC	96.0	%	1	321,943
1333 New Hampshire Avenue	Washington, DC	100.0	%	1	315,371
One Reston Overlook	Reston, VA	100.0	%	1	312,685
Waltham Weston Corporate Center	Waltham, MA	80.4	%	1	306,789
230 CityPoint	Waltham, MA	92.5	%	1	299,944


Properties	Location	% Leased		Number of Buildings	Net Rentable Square Feet
Wisconsin Place (66.67% ownership)	Chevy Chase, MD	91.1	%	1	299,136
540 Madison Avenue (60% ownership)	New York, NY	90.7	%	1	288,340
12310 Sunrise Valley	Reston, VA	100.0	%	1	263,870
Reston Corporate Center	Reston, VA	100.0	%	2	261,046
Quorum Office Park	Chelmsford, MA	100.0	%	2	259,918
New Dominion Technology Park—Building Two	Herndon, VA	100.0	%	1	257,400
611 Gateway	South San Francisco, CA	100.0	%	1	256,302
12300 Sunrise Valley	Reston, VA	100.0	%	1	255,244
1330 Connecticut Avenue	Washington, DC	100.0	%	1	252,136
200 West Street	Waltham, MA	33.2	%	1	248,951
500 E Street, S. W.	Washington, DC	100.0	%	1	248,336
Five Cambridge Center	Cambridge, MA	100.0	%	1	240,480
Democracy Tower	Reston, VA	100.0	%	1	235,436
New Dominion Technology Park—Building One	Herndon, VA	100.0	%	1	235,201
510 Carnegie Center	Princeton, NJ	100.0	%	1	234,160
One Cambridge Center	Cambridge, MA	75.7	%	1	215,385
635 Massachusetts Avenue(1)	Washington, DC	100.0	%	1	211,000
77 CityPoint	Waltham, MA	100.0	%	1	209,707
Sumner Square	Washington, DC	100.0	%	1	208,665
Four Cambridge Center	Cambridge, MA	91.0	%	1	198,723
University Place	Cambridge, MA	100.0	%	1	195,282
North First Business Park(1)	San Jose, CA	75.8	%	5	190,636
1301 New York Avenue	Washington, DC	100.0	%	1	188,357
One Preserve Parkway	Rockville, MD	20.1	%	1	183,192
12290 Sunrise Valley	Reston, VA	100.0	%	1	182,424
2600 Tower Oaks Boulevard	Rockville, MD	88.7	%	1	178,917
Eight Cambridge Center	Cambridge, MA	100.0	%	1	177,226
Lexington Office Park	Lexington, MA	79.4	%	2	166,359
210 Carnegie Center	Princeton, NJ	93.4	%	1	162,368
206 Carnegie Center	Princeton, NJ	100.0	%	1	161,763
191 Spring Street	Lexington, MA	100.0	%	1	158,900
303 Almaden	San Jose, CA	94.1	%	1	156,859
Kingstowne Two	Alexandria, VA	98.2	%	1	156,251
10 & 20 Burlington Mall Road	Burlington, MA	84.6	%	2	153,216
Ten Cambridge Center	Cambridge, MA	100.0	%	1	152,664
Kingstowne One	Alexandria, VA	100.0	%	1	150,838
214 Carnegie Center	Princeton, NJ	78.7	%	1	150,774
212 Carnegie Center	Princeton, NJ	79.1	%	1	149,354
506 Carnegie Center	Princeton, NJ	100.0	%	1	145,213
Two Reston Overlook	Reston, VA	93.3	%	1	134,615
202 Carnegie Center	Princeton, NJ	76.4	%	1	130,582
Waltham Office Center(1)	Waltham, MA	16.0	%	3	129,194
508 Carnegie Center	Princeton, NJ	57.8	%	1	128,662
101 Carnegie Center	Princeton, NJ	100.0	%	1	123,659
Montvale Center	Gaithersburg, MD	80.2	%	1	123,317
504 Carnegie Center	Princeton, NJ	100.0	%	1	121,990
91 Hartwell Avenue	Lexington, MA	40.4	%	1	121,425


Properties	Location	% Leased		Number of Buildings	Net Rentable Square Feet
40 Shattuck Road	Andover, MA	70.5	%	1	121,216
701 Carnegie Center	Princeton, NJ	100.0	%	1	120,000
502 Carnegie Center	Princeton NJ	91.1	%	1	118,473
Annapolis Junction (50% ownership)	Annapolis, MD	58.1	%	1	117,599
Three Cambridge Center	Cambridge, MA	43.0	%	1	108,152
201 Spring Street	Lexington, MA	100.0	%	1	106,300
104 Carnegie Center	Princeton, NJ	97.2	%	1	102,830
Bedford Business Park	Bedford, MA	100.0	%	1	92,207
33 Hayden Avenue	Lexington, MA	100.0	%	1	80,128
Eleven Cambridge Center	Cambridge, MA	100.0	%	1	79,616
Reservoir Place North	Waltham, MA	100.0	%	1	73,258
105 Carnegie Center	Princeton, NJ	55.3	%	1	69,955
32 Hartwell Avenue	Lexington, MA	100.0	%	1	69,154
302 Carnegie Center	Princeton, NJ	100.0	%	1	64,926
195 West Street	Waltham, MA	100.0	%	1	63,500
100 Hayden Avenue	Lexington, MA	100.0	%	1	55,924
181 Spring Street	Lexington, MA	100.0	%	1	55,793
211 Carnegie Center	Princeton, NJ	100.0	%	1	47,025
92 Hayden Avenue	Lexington, MA	100.0	%	1	31,100
201 Carnegie Center	Princeton, NJ	100.0	%	—	6,500

Subtotal for Class A Office Properties		92.7	%	117	33,037,587

Retail
Shops at The Prudential Center	Boston, MA	99.0	%	1	510,029
Kingstowne Retail	Alexandria, VA	100.0	%	1	88,288
Shaws Supermarket at The Prudential Center	Boston, MA	100.0	%	1	57,235

Subtotal for Retail Properties		99.2	%	3	655,552

Office/Technical Properties
Bedford Business Park	Bedford, MA	69.3	%	2	379,056
Seven Cambridge Center	Cambridge, MA	100.0	%	1	231,028
7601 Boston Boulevard	Springfield, VA	100.0	%	1	103,750
7435 Boston Boulevard	Springfield, VA	100.0	%	1	103,557
8000 Grainger Court	Springfield, VA	100.0	%	1	88,775
7500 Boston Boulevard	Springfield, VA	100.0	%	1	79,971
7501 Boston Boulevard	Springfield, VA	100.0	%	1	75,756
6605 Springfield Center Drive(1)	Springfield, VA	0.0	%	1	68,907
Fourteen Cambridge Center	Cambridge, MA	100.0	%	1	67,362
164 Lexington Road	Billerica, MA	0.0	%	1	64,140
103 Fourth Avenue(1)	Waltham, MA	58.5	%	1	62,476
7450 Boston Boulevard	Springfield, VA	100.0	%	1	62,402
7374 Boston Boulevard	Springfield, VA	100.0	%	1	57,321
8000 Corporate Court	Springfield, VA	100.0	%	1	52,539
7451 Boston Boulevard	Springfield, VA	100.0	%	1	47,001
7300 Boston Boulevard	Springfield, VA	100.0	%	1	32,000
17 Hartwell Avenue	Lexington, MA	100.0	%	1	30,000
7375 Boston Boulevard	Springfield, VA	100.0	%	1	26,865
6601 Springfield Center Drive(1)	Springfield, VA	100.0	%	1	26,388

Subtotal for Office/Technical Properties		83.4	%	20	1,659,294


Properties	Location	% Leased		Number of Buildings	Net Rentable Square Feet
Hotel Property
Cambridge Center Marriott	Cambridge, MA	75.1	%(2)	1	330,400

Subtotal for Hotel Property		75.1	%	1	330,400

Subtotal for In-Service Properties		92.4	%	141	35,682,833

Structured Parking		n/a		—	12,789,161

Properties Under Construction
Atlantic Wharf (formerly known as Russia Wharf)	Boston, MA	58	%(3)(4)	2	860,000
2200 Pennsylvania Avenue	Washington, DC	53	%(3)(5)	2	780,000
Weston Corporate Center	Weston, MA	100	%(3)	1	356,367

Subtotal for Properties Under Construction		66	%	5	1,996,367

Total Portfolio				146	50,468,361

(1)	Property held for redevelopment as of December 31, 2009.

(2)	Represents the weighted-average room occupancy for the year ended December 31, 2009. Note that this amount is not included in the calculation of the Total Portfolio occupancy rate for In-Service Properties as of December 31, 2009.

(3)	Represents percentage leased as of February 19, 2010.

(4)	Percentage leased excludes 70,000 square feet of the residential component and includes 24,000 square feet of retail space.

(5)	Percentage leased excludes 330,000 square feet of the residential component and includes 22,000 square feet of retail space in the office component.

The following table shows information relating to properties owned through the Value-Added Fund at December 31, 2009:


Property	Location	% Leased		Number of Buildings	Net Rentable Square Feet
Mountain View Research Park	Mountain View, CA	73.7	%	16	600,449
One and Two Circle Star Way	San Carlos, CA	45.2	%	2	206,945
Mountain View Technology Park	Mountain View, CA	57.6	%	7	135,279
300 Billerica Road	Chelmsford, MA	100.0	%	1	110,882

Total Value-Added Fund		68.8	%	26	1,053,555

Percentage Leased and Average Annualized Revenue per Square Foot for In-Service Properties

The following table sets forth our percentage leased and average annualized revenue per square foot on a historical basis for our In-Service Properties.


	December 31, 2005			December 31, 2006			December 31, 2007			December 31, 2008			December 31, 2009
Percentage leased		93.8	%		94.2	%		94.9	%		94.5	%		92.4	%
Average annualized revenue per square foot(1)	$	43.24		$	43.73		$	45.57		$	51.50		$	52.84

(1)	Annualized revenue is the contractual rental obligations and contractual reimbursements on an annualized basis at December 31, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009.

Top 20 Tenants by Square Feet

Our 20 largest tenants by square feet as of December 31, 2009 were as follows:


	Tenant	Square Feet		% of In-Service Portfolio
1	U.S. Government	1,823,345	(1)	5.17	%
2	Lockheed Martin	1,305,094		3.70	%
3	Citibank	1,047,687	(2)	2.97	%
4	Genentech	565,791	(3)	1.60	%
5	Kirkland & Ellis	557,392	(4)	1.58	%
6	Procter & Gamble (Gillette)	484,051		1.37	%
7	Shearman & Sterling	472,808		1.34	%
8	Weil Gotshal Manges	456,744	(5)	1.29	%
9	O’Melveny & Myers	446,039		1.26	%
10	Parametric Technology	380,987		1.08	%
11	Finnegan Henderson Farabow	356,195	(6)	1.01	%
12	Accenture	354,854		1.01	%
13	Ann Taylor	338,942		0.96	%
14	Northrop Grumman	327,677		0.93	%
15	Biogen Idec MA	321,564		0.91	%
16	Washington Group International	299,079		0.85	%
17	Aramis (Estee Lauder)	295,610	(7)	0.84	%
18	Bingham McCutchen	291,415		0.83	%
19	Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld	290,132		0.82	%
20	Macquarie Holdings	286,288	(8)	0.81	%

	Total % of Portfolio Square Feet			30.33	%

	Total % of Portfolio Revenue			31.48	%

(1)	Includes 116,353, 68,276 and 56,351 square feet of space in properties in which we have a 60%, 51% and 50% interest, respectively.

(2)	Includes 10,080 and 2,761 square feet of space in properties in which we have a 60% and 51% interest, respectively.

(3)	Excludes 55,860 square feet of expansion space at 601 Gateway executed in the third quarter of 2009.

(4)	Includes 256,904 square feet of space in a property in which we have a 51% interest.

(5)	Includes 456,744 square feet of space in a property in which we have a 60% interest.

(6)	Includes 258,990 square feet of space in a property in which we have a 25% interest.

(7)	Includes 295,610 square feet of space in a property in which we have a 60% interest.

(8)	Includes 261,387 square feet of space in a property in which we have a 60% interest.

Tenant Diversification (Gross Rent)*

Our tenant diversification as of December 31, 2009 was as follows:


Sector	Percentage of of Gross Rent
Legal Services	26	%
Financial Services	24	%
Manufacturing / Consumer Products	10	%
Technical and Scientific Services	10	%
Other Professional Services	8	%
Other	6	%
Retail	6	%
Government / Public Administration	4	%
Media / Telecommunications	3	%
Real Estate and Insurance	3	%

*	The classification of our tenants is based on the U.S. Government’s North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), which has replaced the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system.

Lease Expirations(1)


Year of Lease Expiration	Rentable Square Feet Subject to Expiring Leases	Current Annualized Contractual Rent Under Expiring Leases Without Future Step-Ups(2)		Current Annualized Contractual Rent Under Expiring Leases Without Future Step-Ups p.s.f.(2)		Current Annualized Contractual Rent Under Expiring Leases With Future Step-ups(3)		Current Annualized Contractual Rent Under Expiring Leases With Future Step- ups p.s.f.(3)		Percentage of Total Square Feet
2010	3,206,855	$	128,268,790	$	40.00	$	130,810,194	$	40.79	9.1	%
2011	2,864,389		137,216,759		47.90		138,388,278		48.31	8.1	%
2012	3,178,379		151,937,120		47.80		155,045,606		48.78	9.0	%
2013	1,274,393		64,085,194		50.29		66,245,555		51.98	3.6	%
2014	3,314,744		136,308,062		41.12		146,805,681		44.29	9.4	%
2015	2,354,859		113,885,427		48.36		135,674,860		57.61	6.7	%
2016	2,717,719		152,000,893		55.93		161,514,343		59.43	7.7	%
2017	3,009,517		207,276,515		68.87		223,805,530		74.37	8.5	%
2018	748,068		50,118,488		67.00		55,747,737		74.52	2.1	%
2019	2,905,638		163,914,655		56.41		187,405,744		64.50	8.2	%
Thereafter	6,729,429		405,013,596		60.19		499,298,064		74.20	19.0	%

(1)	Includes 100% of unconsolidated joint venture properties, except for properties owned by the Value-Added Fund.

(2)	Represents the monthly contractual base rent and recoveries from tenants under existing leases as of December 31, 2009 multiplied by twelve. This amount reflects total rent before any rent abatements and includes expense reimbursements, which may be estimates as of such date.

(3)

Represents the monthly contractual base rent under expiring leases with future contractual increases upon expiration and recoveries from tenants under existing leases as of December 31, 2009 multiplied by twelve. This amount reflects total rent before any rent abatements and includes expense reimbursements, which may be estimates as of such date.

Item 3.

Legal Proceedings

We are subject to various legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of business. These matters are generally covered by insurance. Management believes that the final outcome of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or liquidity.

Item 4.

Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders

No matters were submitted to a vote of our stockholders during the fourth quarter of the year ended December 31, 2009.

PART II

Item 5.

Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

(a) Our common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “BXP.” The high and low sales prices and dividends for the periods indicated in the table below were:


Quarter Ended	High		Low		Dividends per common share
December 31, 2009	$	71.73	$	57.19	$	.50
September 30, 2009		72.23		42.62		.50
June 30, 2009		53.19		33.79		.50
March 31, 2009		56.78		29.30		.68
December 31, 2008		92.41		37.52		.68
September 30, 2008		105.80		82.00		.68
June 30, 2008		106.53		89.04		.68
March 31, 2008		98.72		79.88		.68

At February 19, 2010, we had approximately 1,620 stockholders of record.

In order to maintain our qualification as a REIT, we must make annual distributions to our stockholders of at least 90% of our taxable income (not including net capital gains). We have adopted a policy of paying regular quarterly distributions on our common stock, and we have adopted a policy of paying regular quarterly distributions on the common units of BPLP. Cash distributions have been paid on our common stock and BPLP’s common units since our initial public offering. Distributions are declared at the discretion of the Board of Directors and depend on actual and anticipated cash from operations, our financial condition, capital requirements, the annual distribution requirements under the REIT provisions of the Internal Revenue Code and other factors the Board of Directors may consider relevant.

During the three months ended December 31, 2009, we issued an aggregate of 16,000 common shares in connection with the redemption of 16,000 common units of limited partnership held by certain limited partners of BPLP. These shares were issued in reliance on an exemption from registration under Section 4(2). We relied on the exception under Section 4(2) based upon factual representations received from the limited partners who received the commons shares.

Stock Performance Graph

The following graph provides a comparison of cumulative total stockholder return for the period from December 31, 2004 through December 31, 2009, among Boston Properties, the Standard & Poor’s (“S&P”) 500 Index, the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, Inc. (“NAREIT”) Equity REIT Total Return Index (the “Equity REIT Index”) and the NAREIT Office REIT Index (the “Office REIT Index”). The Equity REIT Index includes all tax-qualified equity REITs listed on the New York Stock Exchange, the American Stock Exchange and the NASDAQ Stock Market. Equity REITs are defined as those with 75% or more of their gross invested book value of assets invested directly or indirectly in the equity ownership of real estate. The Office REIT Index includes all office REITs included in the Equity REIT Index. Data for Boston Properties, the S&P 500 Index, the Equity REIT Index and the Office REIT Index was provided to us by NAREIT. Upon written request, Boston Properties will provide any stockholder with a list of the REITs included in the Equity REIT Index and the Office REIT Index. The stock performance graph assumes an investment of $100 in each of Boston Properties and the three indices, and the reinvestment of any dividends. The historical information set forth

below is not necessarily indicative of future performance. The data shown is based on the share prices or index values, as applicable, at the end of each month shown.

LOGO


	As of the year ended December 31,
	2004		2005		2006		2007		2008		2009
Boston Properties	$	100.00	$	123.53	$	200.99	$	180.15	$	111.80	$	142.57
S&P 500	$	100.00	$	104.91	$	121.48	$	128.15	$	80.74	$	102.11
Equity REIT Index	$	100.00	$	112.17	$	151.49	$	127.72	$	79.54	$	101.80
Office REIT Index	$	100.00	$	113.11	$	164.25	$	133.11	$	78.45	$	106.33

(b) None.

Item 6.

Selected Financial Data

The following table sets forth our selected financial and operating data on a historical basis, which has been revised for the adoption on January 1, 2009 of (1) Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 470-20 “Debt with Conversion and Other Options” (“ASC 470-20”) (formerly known as FASB Staff Position (“FSP”) No. APB 14-1 “Accounting for Convertible Debt Instruments That May Be Settled in Cash upon Conversion (Including Partial Cash Settlement)” (“FSP No. APB 14-1”)) (Refer to Note 8 of the Consolidated Financial Statements), (2) the guidance included in ASC 810 “Consolidation” (“ASC 810”) (formerly known as SFAS No. 160, “Noncontrolling Interests in Consolidated Financial Statements—an amendment of ARB No. 51” (“SFAS No. 160”)) and ASC 480-10-S99 “Distinguishing Liabilities from Equity” (“ASC 480-10-S99”) (formerly known as EITF Topic No. D-98 “Classification and Measurement of Redeemable Securities” (Amended)) (Refer to Note 11 of the Consolidated Financial Statements), (3) the guidance included in ASC 260-10 “Earnings Per Share” (“ASC 260-10”) (formerly known as FSP EITF 03-06-1, “Determining Whether Instruments Granted in Share-Based Payment Transactions are Participating Securities” (“FSP EITF 03-06-1”)) (Refer to Note 15 of the Consolidated Financial Statements), and which has been revised for the reclassifications related to the disposition of qualifying properties during 2007, 2006 and 2005 which have been reclassified as discontinued operations, for the periods presented, in accordance with the guidance in ASC 360 “Property, Plant and Equipment” (“ASC 360”) (formerly known as SFAS No. 144 “Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long Lived Assets” (“SFAS No. 144”)) (Refer to Note 19 of the Consolidated Financial Statements). The following data should be read in conjunction with our financial statements and notes thereto and Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations included elsewhere in this Form 10-K.

Our historical operating results may not be comparable to our future operating results.


	For the year ended December 31,
	2009			2008			2007			2006			2005
	(in thousands, except per share data)
Statement of Operations Information:
Total revenue	$	1,522,249		$	1,488,400		$	1,482,289		$	1,417,627		$	1,382,866

Expenses:
Rental operating		501,799			488,030			455,840			437,705			434,353
Hotel operating		23,966			27,510			27,765			24,966			22,776
General and administrative		75,447			72,365			69,882			59,375			55,471
Interest		322,833			295,322			302,980			302,221			308,091
Depreciation and amortization		321,681			304,147			286,030			270,562			260,979
Loss from suspension of development		27,766			—			—			—			—
Net derivative losses		—			17,021			—			—			—
Losses (gains) from investments in securities		(2,434	)		4,604			—			—			—
Losses from early extinguishments of debt		510			—			3,417			32,143			12,896

Income before income (loss) from unconsolidated joint ventures, gains on sales of real estate and other assets, discontinued operations, cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle and net income attributable to noncontrolling interests		250,681			279,401			336,375			290,655			288,300
Income (loss) from unconsolidated joint ventures		12,058			(182,018	)		20,428			24,507			4,829
Gains on sales of real estate and other assets		11,760			33,340			929,785			719,826			182,542

Income from continuing operations		274,499			130,723			1,286,588			1,034,988			475,671
Discontinued operations		—			—			266,793			19,081			75,385
Cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle		—			—			—			—			(5,043)
Net income		274,499			130,723			1,553,381			1,054,069			546,013
Net income attributable to noncontrolling interests		(43,485	)		(25,453	)		(243,275	)		(183,778	)		(107,721	)

Net income attributable to Boston Properties, Inc.	$	231,014		$	105,270		$	1,310,106		$	870,291		$	438,292

Basic earnings per common share attributable to Boston Properties, Inc.:
Income from continuing operations	$	1.76		$	0.88		$	9.07		$	7.45		$	3.41
Discontinued operations		—			—			1.91			0.14			0.57
Cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle		—			—			—			—			(0.04	)

Net income	$	1.76		$	0.88		$	10.98		$	7.59		$	3.94

Weighted average number of common shares outstanding		131,050			119,980			118,839			114,721			111,274

Diluted earnings per common share attributable to Boston Properties, Inc.:
Income from continuing operations	$	1.76		$	0.87		$	8.92		$	7.29		$	3.35
Discontinued operations		—			—			1.88			0.14			0.55
Cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle		—			—			—			—			(0.04	)

Net income	$	1.76		$	0.87		$	10.80		$	7.43		$	3.86

Weighted average number of common and common equivalent shares outstanding		131,512			121,299			120,780			117,077			113,559


	December 31,
	2009			2008			2007			2006			2005
	(in thousands)
Balance Sheet information:
Real estate, gross	$	11,099,558		$	10,625,207		$	10,252,355		$	9,552,642		$	9,151,175
Real estate, net		9,065,881			8,856,422			8,720,648			8,160,587			7,886,102
Cash and cash equivalents		1,448,933			241,510			1,506,921			725,788			261,496
Total assets		12,348,703			10,917,476			11,195,097			9,695,206			8,902,368
Total indebtedness		6,719,771			6,092,884			5,378,360			4,548,550			4,826,254
Noncontrolling interest—redeemable preferred units of the Operating Partnership		55,652			55,652			55,652			85,962			185,067
Stockholders’ equity attributable to Boston Properties, Inc.		4,446,002			3,688,993			3,767,756			3,267,717			2,917,346
Noncontrolling interests		623,057			570,112			615,575			545,626			554,201

	For the year ended December 31,
	2009			2008			2007			2006			2005
	(in thousands, except per share and percentage data)
Other Information:
Funds from Operations attributable to Boston Properties, Inc.(1)	$	606,272		$	403,788		$	545,650		$	497,782		$	479,726
Funds from Operations attributable to Boston Properties, Inc., as adjusted(1)		606,272			403,788			547,933			524,321			488,972
Dividends declared per share		2.18			2.72			8.70			8.12			5.19
Cash flows provided by operating activities		617,376			565,311			631,654			528,163			472,249
Cash flows provided by (used in) investing activities		(446,601	)		(1,320,079	)		574,655			229,572			356,605
Cash flows provided by (used in) financing activities		1,036,648			(510,643	)		(425,176	)		(293,443	)		(806,702	)
Total square feet at end of year (including development projects)		50,468			49,761			43,814			43,389			42,013
In-service percentage leased at end of year		92.4	%		94.5	%		94.9	%		94.2	%		93.8	%

(1)

Pursuant to the revised definition of Funds from Operations adopted by the Board of Governors of NAREIT, we calculate Funds from Operations, or “FFO,” by adjusting net income (loss) attributable to Boston Properties, Inc. (computed in accordance with GAAP, including non-recurring items) for gains (or losses) from sales of properties, real estate related depreciation and amortization, and after adjustment for unconsolidated partnerships, joint ventures and preferred distributions. FFO is a non-GAAP financial measure. The use of FFO, combined with the required primary GAAP presentations, has been fundamentally beneficial in improving the understanding of operating results of REITs among the investing public and making comparisons of REIT operating results more meaningful. Management generally considers FFO to be a useful measure for reviewing our comparative operating and financial performance because, by excluding gains and losses related to sales of previously depreciated operating real estate assets and excluding real estate asset depreciation and amortization (which can vary among owners of identical assets in similar condition based on historical cost accounting and useful life estimates), FFO can help one compare the operating performance of a company’s real estate between periods or as compared to different companies. Our computation of FFO may not be comparable to FFO reported by other REITs or real estate companies that do not define the term in accordance with the current NAREIT definition or that interpret the current NAREIT definition differently. Amount represents our share, which was 86.57%, 85.49%, 85.32%, 84.40% and 83.74% for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively, after allocation to the noncontrolling interests.

In addition to presenting FFO in accordance with the NAREIT definition, we also disclose FFO, as adjusted, which excludes the effects of the losses from early extinguishments of debt associated with the sales of real estate. Losses from early extinguishments of debt result when the sale of real estate encumbered by debt requires us to pay the extinguishment costs prior to the debt’s stated maturity and to write-off unamortized loan costs at the date of the extinguishment. Such costs are excluded from the gains on sales of real estate reported in accordance with GAAP. However, we view the losses from early extinguishments of debt associated with the sales of real estate as an incremental cost of the sale transactions because we extinguished the debt in connection with the consummation of the sale transactions and we had no intent to extinguish the debt absent such transactions. We believe that adjusting FFO to exclude these losses more appropriately reflects the results of our operations exclusive of the impact of our sale transactions.

Although our FFO, as adjusted, clearly differs from NAREIT’s definition of FFO, and may not be comparable to that of other REITs and real estate companies, we believe it provides a meaningful supplemental measure of our operating performance because we believe that by excluding the effects of the losses from early extinguishments of debt associated with the sales of real estate, management and investors are presented with an indicator of our operating performance that more closely achieves the objectives of the real estate industry in presenting FFO.

Neither FFO, nor FFO as adjusted, should be considered as an alternative to net income attributable to Boston Properties, Inc. (determined in accordance with GAAP) as an indication of our performance. Neither FFO nor FFO, as adjusted, represent cash generated from operating activities determined in accordance with GAAP and neither of these measures is a measure of liquidity or an indicator of our ability to make cash distributions. We believe that to further understand our performance, FFO and FFO, as adjusted, should be compared with our reported net income attributable to Boston Properties, Inc. and considered in addition to cash flows in accordance with GAAP, as presented in our Consolidated Financial Statements.

A reconciliation of FFO and FFO, as adjusted, to net income attributable to Boston Properties, Inc. computed in accordance with GAAP is provided under the heading of “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Funds from Operations.”

Item 7.

Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

The following discussion should be read in conjunction with the financial statements and notes thereto appearing elsewhere in this report.

Forward-Looking Statements

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the federal securities laws, principally, but not only, under the captions “Business-Business and Growth Strategies,” “Risk Factors” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.” We caution investors that any forward-looking statements in this report, or which management may make orally or in writing from time to time, are based on management’s beliefs and on assumptions made by, and information currently available to, management. When used, the words “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “might,” “plan,” “project,” “result” “should,” “will,” and similar expressions which do not relate solely to historical matters are intended to identify forward-looking statements. Such statements are subject to risks, uncertainties and assumptions and are not guarantees of future performance, which may be affected by known and unknown risks, trends, uncertainties and factors that are beyond our control. Should one or more of these risks or uncertainties materialize, or should underlying assumptions prove incorrect, actual results may differ materially from those anticipated, estimated or projected by the forward-looking statements. We caution you that, while forward-looking statements reflect our good faith beliefs when we make them, they are not guarantees of future performance and are impacted by actual events when they occur after we make such statements. We expressly disclaim any responsibility to update our forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. Accordingly, investors should use caution in relying on past forward-looking statements, which are based on results and trends at the time they are made, to anticipate future results or trends.

Some of the risks and uncertainties that may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to differ materially from those expressed or implied by forward-looking statements include, among others, the following:

•

the impact of the continued global economic slowdown (including the related high unemployment and constrained credit), which is having and may continue to have a negative effect on the following, among other things:

•

the fundamentals of our business, including overall market occupancy and rental rates;

•

the financial condition of our tenants, many of which are financial, legal and other professional firms, our lenders, counterparties to our derivative financial instruments and institutions that hold our cash balances and short-term investments, which may expose us to increased risks of default by these parties;

•

our ability to obtain debt financing on attractive terms or at all, which may adversely impact our ability to pursue acquisition and development opportunities and refinance existing debt and our future interest expense; and

•

the value of our real estate assets, which may limit our ability dispose of assets at attractive prices or obtain or maintain debt financing secured by our properties or on an unsecured basis;

•

general risks affecting the real estate industry (including, without limitation, the inability to enter into or renew leases, dependence on tenants’ financial condition, and competition from other developers, owners and operators of real estate);

•

failure to manage effectively our growth and expansion into new markets and sub-markets or to integrate acquisitions and developments successfully;

•

the ability of our joint venture partners to satisfy their obligations;

•

risks and uncertainties affecting property development and construction (including, without limitation, construction delays, cost overruns, inability to obtain necessary permits and public opposition to such activities);

•

risks associated with the availability and terms of financing and the use of debt to fund acquisitions and developments, including the risk associated with interest rates impacting the cost and/or availability of financing;

•

risks associated with forward interest rate contracts and the effectiveness of such arrangements;

•

risks associated with downturns in the national and local economies, increases in interest rates, and volatility in the securities markets;

•

risks associated with actual or threatened terrorist attacks;

•

costs of compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and other similar laws;

•

potential liability for uninsured losses and environmental contamination;

•

risks associated with our potential failure to qualify as a REIT under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended;

•

possible adverse changes in tax and environmental laws;

•

the impact of newly adopted accounting principles on our accounting policies and on period-to-period comparisons of financial results;

•

risks associated with possible state and local tax audits; and

•

risks associated with our dependence on key personnel whose continued service is not guaranteed.

The risks set forth above are not exhaustive. Other sections of this report, including “Part I, Item 1A- Risk Factors,” include additional factors that could adversely affect our business and financial performance. Moreover, we operate in a very competitive and rapidly changing environment. New risk factors emerge from time to time and it is not possible for management to predict all such risk factors, nor can we assess the impact of all such risk factors on our business or the extent to which any factor, or combination of factors, may cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statements. Given these risks and uncertainties, investors should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements as a prediction of actual results. Investors should also refer to our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q for future periods and current reports on Form 8-K as we file them with the SEC, and to other materials we may furnish to the public from time to time through Forms 8-K or otherwise, for a discussion of risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results, performance or achievements to differ materially from those expressed or implied by forward-looking statements. We expressly disclaim any responsibility to update any forward-looking statements to reflect changes in underlying assumptions or factors, new information, future events, or otherwise, and you should not rely upon these forward-looking statements after the date of this report.

Overview

We are a fully integrated self-administered and self-managed REIT and one of the largest owners and developers of Class A office properties in the United States. Our properties are concentrated in five markets—Boston, midtown Manhattan, Washington, DC, San Francisco and Princeton, NJ. We generate revenue and cash primarily by leasing our Class A office space to our tenants. Factors we consider when we lease space include the creditworthiness of the tenant, the length of the lease, the rental rate to be paid, the costs of tenant improvements, current and anticipated operating costs and real estate taxes, our current and anticipated vacancy, current and anticipated future demand for office space and general economic factors. From time to time, we also generate cash through the sale of assets.

The impact of the current state of the economy, including the high rate of unemployment, continues to adversely impact the fundamentals of our business, including overall market occupancy and rental rates. Our core strategy has always been to operate in supply constrained markets with high barriers to entry and to focus on executing long-term leases with financially strong tenants. Historically, this combination has tended to reduce our exposure in down cycles and we believe this is proving to be true once again.

Although leasing velocity has generally improved in our markets since the beginning of 2009, particularly in New York City, the lack of meaningful job growth, the overall availability of space and the absence of meaningful new tenant expansion have negatively impacted lease economics. Rental rates have declined and transaction costs (including tenant improvement allowances and free rent periods) have increased. While it is not clear how long these trends will persist, our experiences in past recessions suggest that we will not see unemployment peak and job growth begin until the later stages of a broad economic recovery. We continue to believe that general office market conditions are dependent on the impact of a recovery in the labor markets. Because the individual labor and industry markets may recover at different paces, we may see varying degrees of strength or softness in our core markets. Throughout 2009 we have seen an increase in transaction velocity across all of our markets. Although overall supply has increased, demand has decreased and there has been negative absorption of available space. We expect tenants in our markets to continue to take advantage of the ability to upgrade to high-quality space, such as ours. Overall, we expect our occupancy to remain relatively flat during 2010.

Given the volatility in the capital markets over the past 18 months and the potential to acquire assets at attractive prices, we took steps to improve our liquidity and enhance our capital position. Since the beginning of 2009 we raised a total of $1.8 billion from the following: (1) we raised $265 million in two secured financings, (2) in June 2009, we completed a public offering of 17,250,000 shares of common stock, which raised approximately $842 million of net proceeds, and (3) in October 2009, we completed a public offering of 5.875% senior notes due 2019 that raised aggregate net proceeds of approximately $694 million. In 2010, we expect to repay approximately $78 million of indebtedness and to refinance or extend approximately $632 million of $646 million of other debt that matures, which amount includes our share of unconsolidated joint venture debt. As of February 19, 2010, we believe our combination of available cash of approximately $1.4 billion and borrowing capacity on our Unsecured Line of Credit of approximately $1.0 billion is sufficient to meet all of our existing development funding obligations, repay near term financings and provide significant capital for future investments. We believe the quality of our assets and our strong balance sheet are attractive to lenders’ and equity investors’ current investment selectivity and should enable us to continue to access multiple sources of capital. In addition, we believe deteriorated market fundamentals, overleveraged real estate assets and existing property owners with insufficient capital resources will eventually provide opportunities for well capitalized companies and seasoned operators, such as us, to acquire high-quality assets at attractive levels. Opportunities to acquire properties may come through outright property acquisitions, joint venture arrangements or through the purchase of first mortgage or mezzanine debt. While transactional activity in the office sector has yet to accelerate, our management team is actively seeking opportunities. We will maintain our disciplined investment strategy, which focuses on high-quality assets in supply-constrained markets, emphasizing long-term value creation.

We believe the successful lease-up and completion of our development pipeline will enhance our long-term return on equity and earnings growth as these developments are placed in-service in 2010, 2011 and 2012. However, we do not anticipate undertaking new development projects in the foreseeable future without significant pre-leasing commitments from creditworthy tenants.

For descriptions of significant transactions that we entered into during 2009, see “Item 1. Business—Transactions During 2009.”

Critical Accounting Policies

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, or GAAP, requires management to use judgment in the application of accounting policies, including making estimates and assumptions. We base our estimates on historical experience and on various other assumptions believed to be reasonable under the circumstances. These judgments affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the dates of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenue and expenses during the reporting periods. If our judgment or interpretation of the facts and circumstances relating to various transactions had been different, it is

possible that different accounting policies would have been applied resulting in a different presentation of our financial statements. From time to time, we evaluate our estimates and assumptions. In the event estimates or assumptions prove to be different from actual results, adjustments are made in subsequent periods to reflect more current information. Below is a discussion of accounting policies that we consider critical in that they may require complex judgment in their application or require estimates about matters that are inherently uncertain.

Real Estate

Upon acquisitions of real estate, we assess the fair value of acquired tangible and intangible assets, including land, buildings, tenant improvements, “above-” and “below-market” leases, origination costs, acquired in-place leases, other identified intangible assets and assumed liabilities in accordance with guidance included in Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 805 “Business Combinations” (“ASC 805”) (formerly known as Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 141(R) (“SFAS 141(R)”)), and allocate the purchase price to the acquired assets and assumed liabilities, including land at appraised value and buildings as if vacant. We assess and consider fair value based on estimated cash flow projections that utilize discount and/or capitalization rates that we deem appropriate, as well as available market information. Estimates of future cash flows are based on a number of factors including the historical operating results, known and anticipated trends, and market and economic conditions. The fair value of the tangible assets of an acquired property considers the value of the property as if it were vacant. We also consider an allocation of purchase price of other acquired intangibles, including acquired in-place leases that may have a customer relationship intangible value, including (but not limited to) the nature and extent of the existing relationship with the tenants, the tenant’s credit quality and expectations of lease renewals. Based on our acquisitions to date, our allocation to customer relationship intangible assets has been immaterial.

We record acquired “above-” and “below-market” leases at their fair values (using a discount rate which reflects the risks associated with the leases acquired) equal to the difference between (1) the contractual amounts to be paid pursuant to each in-place lease and (2) management’s estimate of fair market lease rates for each corresponding in-place lease, measured over a period equal to the remaining term of the lease for above-market leases and the initial term plus the term of any below-market fixed rate renewal options for below-market leases. Other intangible assets acquired include amounts for in-place lease values that are based on our evaluation of the specific characteristics of each tenant’s lease. Factors to be considered include estimates of carrying costs during hypothetical expected lease-up periods considering current market conditions, and costs to execute similar leases. In estimating carrying costs, we include real estate taxes, insurance and other operating expenses and estimates of lost rentals at market rates during the expected lease-up periods, depending on local market conditions. In estimating costs to execute similar leases, we consider leasing commissions, legal and other related expenses.

Management reviews its long-lived assets used in operations for impairment following the end of each quarter and when there is an event or change in circumstances that indicates an impairment in value. An impairment loss is recognized if the carrying amount of its assets is not recoverable and exceeds its fair value. If such criteria are present, an impairment loss is recognized based on the excess of the carrying amount of the asset over its fair value. The evaluation of anticipated cash flows is highly subjective and is based in part on assumptions regarding future occupancy, rental rates and capital requirements that could differ materially from actual results in future periods. Since cash flows on properties considered to be “long-lived assets to be held and used” as defined by guidance included in ASC 360 “Property, Plant and Equipment” (“ASC 360”) (formerly known as SFAS No. 144, “Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets,” (“SFAS No. 144”)) are considered on an undiscounted basis to determine whether an asset has been impaired, our established strategy of holding properties over the long term directly decreases the likelihood of recording an impairment loss. If our strategy changes or market conditions otherwise dictate an earlier sale date, an impairment loss may be recognized and such loss could be material. If we determine that impairment has occurred, the affected assets must be reduced to their fair value.

ASC 360 (formerly known as SFAS No. 144), requires that qualifying assets and liabilities and the results of operations that have been sold, or otherwise qualify as “held for sale,” be presented as discontinued operations in all periods presented if the property operations are expected to be eliminated and we will not have significant continuing involvement following the sale. The components of the property’s net income that is reflected as discontinued operations include the net gain (or loss) upon the disposition of the property held for sale, operating results, depreciation and interest expense (if the property is subject to a secured loan). We generally consider assets to be “held for sale” when the transaction has been approved by our Board of Directors, or a committee thereof, and there are no known significant contingencies relating to the sale, such that the property sale within one year is considered probable. Following the classification of a property as “held for sale,” no further depreciation is recorded on the assets and the asset is written down to the lower of carrying value or fair market value.

Real estate is stated at depreciated cost. A variety of costs are incurred in the acquisition, development and leasing of properties. The cost of buildings and improvements includes the purchase price of property, legal fees and other acquisition costs. Effective January 1, 2009, under the provisions of ASC 805 (formerly known as SFAS No. 141(R)), we were required to expense costs associated with the acquisition of real property such as legal, due diligence and other closing related costs. Costs directly related to the development of properties are capitalized. Capitalized development costs include interest, internal wages, property taxes, insurance, and other project costs incurred during the period of development. After the determination is made to capitalize a cost, it is allocated to the specific component of a project that is benefited. Determination of when a development project commences and capitalization begins, and when a development project is substantially complete and held available for occupancy and capitalization must cease involves a degree of judgment. Our capitalization policy on development properties is guided by guidance in ASC 835-20 “Capitalization of Interest” and ASC 970 “Real Estate—General” (formerly known as SFAS No. 34 “Capitalization of Interest Cost” and SFAS No. 67 “Accounting for Costs and the Initial Rental Operations of Real Estate Projects”). The costs of land and buildings under development include specifically identifiable costs. The capitalized costs include pre-construction costs necessary to the development of the property, development costs, construction costs, interest costs, real estate taxes, salaries and related costs and other costs incurred during the period of development. We begin the capitalization of costs during the pre-construction period which we define as activities that are necessary to the development of the property. We consider a construction project as substantially completed and held available for occupancy upon the completion of tenant improvements, but no later than one year from cessation of major construction activity. We cease capitalization on the portion (1) substantially completed, (2) occupied or held available for occupancy, and we capitalize only those costs associated with the portion under construction, or (3) if activities necessary for the development of the property have been suspended.

Investments in Unconsolidated Joint Ventures

Except for ownership interests in variable interest entities for which we are the primary beneficiary, we account for our investments in joint ventures under the equity method of accounting because we exercise significant influence over, but do not control, these entities. Our judgment with respect to our level of influence or control of an entity and whether we are the primary beneficiary of a variable interest entity involves the consideration of various factors including the form of our ownership interest, our representation in the entity’s governance, the size of our investment (including loans), estimates of future cash flows, our ability to participate in policy making decisions and the rights of the other investors to participate in the decision making process and to replace us as manager and/or liquidate the venture, if applicable. Our assessment of our influence or control over an entity affects the presentation of these investments in our consolidated financial statements.

These investments are recorded initially at cost, as Investments in Unconsolidated Joint Ventures, and subsequently adjusted for equity in earnings and cash contributions and distributions. Any difference between the carrying amount of these investments on our balance sheet and the underlying equity in net assets is amortized as an adjustment to equity in earnings of unconsolidated joint ventures over the life of the related asset. Under the equity method of accounting, our net equity is reflected within the Consolidated Balance Sheets, and our share of

net income or loss from the joint ventures is included within the Consolidated Statements of Operations. The joint venture agreements may designate different percentage allocations among investors for profits and losses, however, our recognition of joint venture income or loss generally follows the joint venture’s distribution priorities, which may change upon the achievement of certain investment return thresholds. For ownership interests in variable interest entities, we consolidate those in which we are the primary beneficiary. Our investments in unconsolidated joint ventures are reviewed for impairment periodically and we record impairment charges when events or circumstances change indicating that a decline in the fair value below the carrying values have occurred and such decline is other-than-temporary. The ultimate realization of our investment in unconsolidated joint ventures is dependent on a number of factors, including the performance of each investment and market conditions. We will record an impairment charge if we determine that a decline in the value of an investment in an unconsolidated joint venture is other than temporary.

To the extent that we contribute assets to a joint venture, our investment in the joint venture is recorded at our cost basis in the assets that were contributed to the joint venture. To the extent that our cost basis is different than the basis reflected at the joint venture level, the basis difference is amortized over the life of the related asset and included in our share of equity in net income of the joint venture. In accordance with the provisions of ASC 970-323 “Investments—Equity Method and Joint Ventures” (“ASC 970-323”) (formerly Statement of Position 78-9 “Accounting for Investments in Real Estate Ventures” (“SOP 78-9”)), we will recognize gains on the contribution of real estate to joint ventures, relating solely to the outside partner’s interest, to the extent the economic substance of the transaction is a sale.

The combined summarized financial information of the unconsolidated joint ventures is disclosed in Note 5 of the Consolidated Financial Statements.

Revenue Recognition

Contractual rental revenue is reported on a straight-line basis over the terms of our respective leases. In accordance with guidance included in ASC 805 (formerly known as SFAS No. 141(R)), we recognize rental revenue of acquired in-place “above-” and “below-market” leases at their fair values over the terms of the respective leases. Accrued rental income as reported on the Consolidated Balance Sheets represents rental income recognized in excess of rent payments actually received pursuant to the terms of the individual lease agreements.

For the year ended December 31, 2009, we recorded approximately $4.2 million of rental revenue representing the adjustments of rents from “above-” and “below-market” leases in accordance with ASC 805 (formerly known as SFAS No. 141(R)). For the year ended December 31, 2009, the impact of the straight-line rent adjustment increased rental revenue by approximately $42.2 million. These amounts exclude the adjustment of rents from “above-” and “below-market” leases and straight-line income from unconsolidated joint ventures, which are disclosed in Note 5 of the Consolidated Financial Statements.

Our leasing strategy is generally to secure creditworthy tenants that meet our underwriting guidelines. Furthermore, following the initiation of a lease, we continue to actively monitor the tenant’s creditworthiness to ensure that all tenant related assets are recorded at their realizable value. When assessing tenant credit quality, we:

•

review relevant financial information, including:

•

financial ratios;

•

net worth;

•

revenue;

•

cash flows;

•

leverage: and

•

liquidity;

•

evaluate the depth and experience of the tenant’s management team; and

•

assess the strength/growth of the tenant’s industry.

As a result of the underwriting process, tenants are then categorized into one of three categories:

(1)

low risk tenants;

(2)

the tenant’s credit is such that we require collateral, in which case we:

•

require a security deposit; and/or

•

reduce upfront tenant improvement investments; or

(3)

the tenant’s credit is below our acceptable parameters.

We consistently monitor the credit quality of our tenant base. We provide an allowance for doubtful accounts arising from estimated losses that could result from the tenant’s inability to make required current rent payments and an allowance against accrued rental income for future potential losses that we deem to be unrecoverable over the term of the lease.

Tenant receivables are assigned a credit rating of 1 through 4. A rating of 1 represents the highest possible rating and no allowance is recorded. A rating of 4 represents the lowest credit rating, in which case we record a full reserve against the receivable balance. Among the factors considered in determining the credit rating include:

•

payment history;

•

credit status and change in status (credit ratings for public companies are used as a primary metric);

•

change in tenant space needs (i.e., expansion/downsize);

•

tenant financial performance;

•

economic conditions in a specific geographic region; and

•

industry specific credit considerations.

If our estimates of collectability differ from the cash received, then the timing and amount of our reported revenue could be impacted. The average remaining term of our in-place tenant leases, including unconsolidated joint ventures, was approximately 7.0 years as of December 31, 2009. The credit risk is mitigated by the high quality of our existing tenant base, reviews of prospective tenants’ risk profiles prior to lease execution and consistent monitoring of our portfolio to identify potential problem tenants.

Recoveries from tenants, consisting of amounts due from tenants for common area maintenance, real estate taxes and other recoverable costs, are recognized as revenue in the period during which the expenses are incurred. Tenant reimbursements are recognized and presented in accordance with guidance in ASC 605-45 “Principal Agent Considerations” (“ASC 605-45”) (formerly known as Emerging Issues Task Force, or EITF, Issue 99-19 “Reporting Revenue Gross as a Principal versus Net as an Agent,” or (“Issue 99-19”)). ASC 605-45 requires that these reimbursements be recorded on a gross basis, as we are generally the primary obligor with respect to purchasing goods and services from third-party suppliers, have discretion in selecting the supplier and have credit risk. We also receive reimbursement of payroll and payroll related costs from third parties which we reflect on a net basis in accordance with guidance in ASC 605-45.

Our hotel revenues are derived from room rentals and other sources such as charges to guests for long-distance telephone service, fax machine use, movie and vending commissions, meeting and banquet room revenue and laundry services. Hotel revenues are recognized as earned.

We receive management and development fees from third parties. Management fees are recorded and earned based on a percentage of collected rents at the properties under management, and not on a straight-line basis, because such fees are contingent upon the collection of rents. We review each development agreement and record development fees as earned depending on the risk associated with each project. Profit on development fees earned from joint venture projects is recognized as revenue to the extent of the third party partners’ ownership interest.

Gains on sales of real estate are recognized pursuant to the provisions included in ASC 360-20 “Real Estate Sales” (“ASC 360-20”) (formerly known as SFAS No. 66, “Accounting for Sales of Real Estate”). The specific timing of the sale is measured against various criteria in ASC 360-20 related to the terms of the transaction and any continuing involvement in the form of management or financial assistance associated with the properties. If the sales criteria for the full accrual method are not met, we defer some or all of the gain recognition and account for the continued operations of the property by applying the finance, leasing, profit sharing, deposit, installment or cost recovery methods, as appropriate, until the sales criteria are met.

Depreciation and Amortization

We compute depreciation and amortization on our properties using the straight-line method based on estimated useful asset lives. In accordance with guidance in ASC 805 (formerly known as SFAS No. 141(R)), we allocate the acquisition cost of real estate to land, building, tenant improvements, acquired “above-” and “below-market” leases, origination costs and acquired in-place leases based on an assessment of their fair value and depreciate or amortize these assets over their useful lives. The amortization of acquired “above-” and “below-market” leases and acquired in-place leases is recorded as an adjustment to revenue and depreciation and amortization, respectively, in the Consolidated Statements of Operations.

Fair Value of Financial Instruments

For purposes of disclosure, we calculate the fair value of our mortgage notes payable and unsecured senior notes. We discount the spread between the future contractual interest payments and hypothetical future interest payments on our mortgage debt and unsecured notes based on a current market rate. In determining the current market rate, we add our estimate of a market spread to the quoted yields on federal government treasury securities with similar maturity dates to our own debt. Because our valuations of our financial instruments are based on these types of estimates, the actual fair value of our financial instruments may differ materially if our estimates do not prove to be accurate.

Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities

Derivative instruments and hedging activities require management to make judgments on the nature of its derivatives and their effectiveness as hedges. These judgments determine if the changes in fair value of the derivative instruments are reported in the Consolidated Statements of Operations as a component of net income or as a component of comprehensive income and as a component of equity on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. While management believes its judgments are reasonable, a change in a derivative’s effectiveness as a hedge could materially affect expenses, net income and equity.

Results of Operations

The following discussion is based on our Consolidated Financial Statements for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007.

At December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, we owned or had interests in a portfolio of 146, 147 and 139 properties, respectively (the “Total Property Portfolio”). As a result of changes within our Total Property Portfolio, the financial data presented below shows significant changes in revenue and expenses from

period-to-period. Accordingly, we do not believe that our period-to-period financial data with respect to the Total Property Portfolio are necessarily meaningful. Therefore, the comparisons of operating results for the years ended 2009, 2008 and 2007 show separately the changes attributable to the properties that were owned by us throughout each period compared (the “Same Property Portfolio”) and the changes attributable to the properties included in Properties Acquired, Sold, Repositioned and Placed-in Service.

In our analysis of operating results, particularly to make comparisons of net operating income between periods meaningful, it is important to provide information for properties that were in-service and owned by us throughout each period presented. We refer to properties acquired or placed in-service prior to the beginning of the earliest period presented and owned by us through the end of the latest period presented as our Same Property Portfolio. The Same Property Portfolio therefore excludes properties placed in-service, acquired or repositioned after the beginning of the earliest period presented or disposed of prior to the end of the latest period presented.

Net operating income, or “NOI,” is a non-GAAP financial measure equal to net income attributable to Boston Properties, Inc., the most directly comparable GAAP financial measure, plus income attributable to noncontrolling interests, losses (gains) from investments in securities, losses from early extinguishments of debt, net derivative losses, loss from suspension of development, depreciation and amortization, interest expense, general and administrative expense, less gains on sales of real estate and other assets, income (loss) from unconsolidated joint ventures, interest and other income and development and management services revenue. We use NOI internally as a performance measure and believe NOI provides useful information to investors regarding our financial condition and results of operations because it reflects only those income and expense items that are incurred at the property level. Therefore, we believe NOI is a useful measure for evaluating the operating performance of our real estate assets.

Our management also uses NOI to evaluate regional property level performance and to make decisions about resource allocations. Further, we believe NOI is useful to investors as a performance measure because, when compared across periods, NOI reflects the impact on operations from trends in occupancy rates, rental rates, operating costs and acquisition and development activity on an unleveraged basis, providing perspective not immediately apparent from net income attributable to Boston Properties, Inc. NOI excludes certain components from net income attributable to Boston Properties, Inc. in order to provide results that are more closely related to a property’s results of operations. For example, interest expense is not necessarily linked to the operating performance of a real estate asset and is often incurred at the corporate level as opposed to the property level. In addition, depreciation and amortization, because of historical cost accounting and useful life estimates, may distort operating performance at the property level. NOI presented by us may not be comparable to NOI reported by other REITs that define NOI differently. We believe that in order to facilitate a clear understanding of our operating results, NOI should be examined in conjunction with net income attributable to Boston Properties, Inc. as presented in our Consolidated Financial Statements. NOI should not be considered as an alternative to net income attributable to Boston Properties, Inc. as an indication of our performance or to cash flows as a measure of liquidity or ability to make distributions. For a reconciliation of NOI to net income attributable to Boston Properties Inc., see Note 14 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

Comparison of the year ended December 31, 2009 to the year ended December 31, 2008

The table below shows selected operating information for the Same Property Portfolio and the Total Property Portfolio. The Same Property Portfolio consists of 126 properties, including properties acquired or placed in-service on or prior to January 1, 2008 and owned through December 31, 2009, totaling approximately 30.1 million net rentable square feet of space (excluding square feet of structured parking). The Total Property Portfolio includes the effects of the other properties either placed in-service, acquired or repositioned after January 1, 2008 or disposed of on or prior to December 31, 2009. This table includes a reconciliation from the Same Property Portfolio to the Total Property Portfolio by also providing information for the year ended December 31, 2009 and 2008 with respect to the properties which were acquired, placed in-service, repositioned or sold.


	Same Property Portfolio												Properties Sold				Properties Acquired					Properties Placed In-Service					Properties Repositioned				Total Property Portfolio
(dollars in thousands)	2009			2008			Increase/ (Decrease)			% Change			2009		2008		2009		2008			2009			2008		2009		2008		2009			2008			Increase/ (Decrease)			% Change
Rental Revenue:
Rental Revenue	$	1,358,000		$	1,344,408		$	13,592			1.01	%	$	—	$	90	$	7,244	$	1,828		$	73,273		$	43,283	$	—	$	—	$	1,438,517		$	1,389,609		$	48,908		3.52	%
Termination Income		14,410			12,443			1,967			15.81	%		—		—		—		—			—			—		—		—		14,410			12,443			1,967		15.81	%

Total Rental Revenue		1,372,410			1,356,851			15,559			1.15	%		—		90		7,244		1,828			73,273			43,283		—		—		1,452,927			1,402,052			50,875		3.63	%

Real Estate Operating Expenses		479,983			477,172			2,811			0.59	%		—		46		1,274		274			20,542			10,538		—		—		501,799			488,030			13,769		2.82	%

Net Operating Income, excluding hotel		892,427			879,679			12,748			1.45	%		—		44		5,970		1,554			52,731			32,745		—		—		951,128			914,022			37,106		4.06	%

Hotel Net Operating Income(1)		6,419			9,362			(2,943	)		(31.44	)%		—		—		—		—			—			—		—		—		6,419			9,362			(2,943	)	(31.44	)%

Consolidated Net Operating Income(1)		898,846			889,041			9,805			1.10	%		—		44		5,970		1,554			52,731			32,745		—		—		957,547			923,384			34,163		3.70	%

Other Revenue:
Development and management services		—			—			—			—			—		—		—		—			—			—		—		—		34,878			30,518			4,360		14.29	%
Interest and other		—			—			—			—			—		—		—		—			—			—		—		—		4,059			18,958			(14,899	)	(78.59	)%

Total Other Revenue		—			—			—			—			—		—		—		—			—			—		—		—		38,937			49,476			(10,539	)	(21.30	)%
Other Expenses:
General and administrative expense		—			—			—			—			—		—		—		—			—			—		—		—		75,447			72,365			3,082		4.26	%
Interest expense		—			—			—			—			—		—		—		—			—			—		—		—		322,833			295,322			27,511		9.32	%
Depreciation and amortization		299,175			293,604			5,571			1.90	%		—		—		4,813		1,375			17,693			9,168		—		—		321,681			304,147			17,534		5.76	%
Loss from suspension of development																																27,766			—			27,766		100.00	%
Net derivative losses		—			—			—			—			—		—		—		—			—			—		—		—		—			17,021			(17,021	)	(100.00	)%
Losses (gains) from investments in securities		—			—			—			—			—		—		—		—			—			—		—		—		(2,434	)		4,604			(7,038	)	(152.87	)%
Losses from early extinguishments of debt		—			—			—			—			—		—		—		—			—			—		—		—		510			—			510		100.00	%

Total Other Expenses		299,175			293,604			5,571			1.90	%		—		—		4,813		1,375			17,693			9,168		—		—		745,803			693,459			52,344		7.55	%

Income before income (loss) from unconsolidated joint ventures, gains on sales of real estate and other assets and net income attributable to noncontrolling interests	$	599,671		$	595,437		$	4,234			0.71	%	$	—	$	44	$	1,157	$	179		$	35,038		$	23,577	$	—	$	—	$	250,681		$	279,401		$	(28,720	)	(10.28	)%
Income (loss) from unconsolidated joint ventures	$	(1,524	)	$	(33,794	)	$	32,270			95.49	%	$	—	$	—	$	15,007	$	(148,224	)	$	(1,425	)	$	—	$	—	$	—		12,058			(182,018	)		194,076		106.62	%
Gains on sales of real estate and other assets	$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—		$	—		$	—	$	—	$	—		11,760			33,340			(21,580	)	(64.73	)%

Net income																																274,499			130,723			143,776		109.99	%
Net income attributable to noncontrolling interests:
Noncontrolling interests in property partnerships																																(2,778	)		(1,997	)		(781	)	(39.11	)%
Noncontrolling interest—common units of the Operating Partnership																																(35,534	)		(14,392	)		(21,142	)	(146.90	)%
Noncontrolling interest in gains on sales of real estate and other assets—common units of the Operating Partnership																																(1,579	)		(4,838	)		3,259		67.36	%
Noncontrolling interest–redeemable preferred units of the Operating Partnership																																(3,594	)		(4,226	)		632		14.96	%

Net Income attributable to Boston Properties, Inc.																															$	231,014		$	105,270		$	125,744		119.45	%

(1)

For a detailed discussion of NOI, including the reasons management believes NOI is useful to investors, see page 52. Hotel Net Operating Income for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008 is comprised of Hotel Revenue of $30,385 and $36,872, respectively, less Hotel Expenses of $23,966 and $27,510, respectively, per the Consolidated Statements of Operations.

Rental Revenue

The increase of approximately $48.9 million in Total Property Portfolio rental revenue is comprised of increases and decreases within four categories that comprise our Total Property Portfolio. Rental revenue from the Same Property Portfolio increased approximately $13.6 million, Properties Sold decreased approximately $0.1 million, Properties Acquired increased approximately $5.4 million and Properties Placed In-Service increased approximately $30.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2009 compared to the year ended December 31, 2008.

Rental revenue from the Same Property Portfolio increased approximately $13.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2009 compared to 2008. Included in the Same Property Portfolio rental revenue is an overall increase in contractual rental revenue of approximately $2.0 million and an increase of approximately $24.3 million in straight-line rents. The increase in straight-line rent is primarily the result of us establishing in the third quarter of 2008 a $21.0 million reserve, which was reflected as a direct reduction of straight-line rent, for the full amount of the accrued straight-line rent balances associated with our leases in New York City with Lehman Brothers, Inc. and the law firm of Heller Ehrman LLP. The increases in contractual rental revenue and straight-line rent were offset by an approximately $10.4 million decrease in recoveries from tenants in 2009. Generally, under each of our leases, we are entitled to recover from the tenant increases in specific operating expenses associated with the leased property above the amount incurred for these operating expenses in the first year of the lease. The decrease in recoveries from tenants is primarily due to the terminations by tenants in New York City, which resulted in lesser tenant recoveries due to decreased occupancy and, to the extent space was re-leased, leases are in their first year during which, generally, no tenant recoveries are earned. We also had an approximately $2.3 million decrease in parking and other income. We expect straight-line rents for the Total Property Portfolio to contribute an aggregate of approximately $60 million to $70 million in fiscal 2010 compared to approximately $42.2 million in 2009.

Revenue from Properties Sold decreased by approximately $0.1 million due to the transfer of Mountain View Research Park and Mountain View Technology Park to the Value-Added Fund on January 7, 2008. These properties have not been classified as discontinued operations due to our continuing involvement as the property manager for the properties and our continued ownership interest through the Value-Added Fund.

The acquisition of 635 Massachusetts Avenue on September 26, 2008 increased rental revenue from Properties Acquired by approximately $5.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2009 compared to the year ended December 31, 2008.

The increase in rental revenue from Properties Placed In-Service relates to fully placing in-service our 505 9^th Street development project in the first quarter of 2008, our 77 CityPoint and South of Market development projects during the fourth quarter of 2008, our One Preserve Parkway and Wisconsin Place Office development projects during the second quarter of 2009, our Democracy Tower development project during the third quarter of 2009 and our 701 Carnegie Center development project during the fourth quarter of 2009. The One Preserve Parkway development project had been partially placed in-service during the second quarter of 2008. Rental revenue from Properties Placed In-Service increased approximately $30.0 million, as detailed below:


Property	Quarter Placed In-Service	Rental Revenue for the year ended December 31
Property	Quarter Placed In-Service	2009		2008		Change
		(in thousands)
505 9^th Street	First Quarter, 2008	$	21,974	$	20,090	$	1,884
South of Market	Fourth Quarter, 2008		27,280		20,010		7,270
77 CityPoint	Fourth Quarter, 2008		8,961		2,098		6,863
One Preserve Parkway	Second Quarter, 2009		1,516		1,085		431
Wisconsin Place Office	Second Quarter, 2009		7,753		—		7,753
Democracy Tower	Third Quarter, 2009		4,738		—		4,738
701 Carnegie Center	Fourth Quarter, 2009		1,051		—		1,051

Total		$	73,273	$	43,283	$	29,990

Termination Income

We recognized termination income totaling approximately $14.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2009, which was related to multiple tenants across the Total Property Portfolio that terminated their leases. Approximately $7.5 million of termination income for 2009 related to a termination agreement with a tenant at 601 Lexington Avenue. Approximately $3.6 million of the total termination income for 2009 is non-cash and consists of the estimated value of furniture and fixtures that two tenants transferred to us in connection with the terminations of their leases. Termination income totaling approximately $12.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2008 was related to multiple tenants across the Total Property Portfolio that terminated their leases, including $7.5 million of termination income related to a termination agreement with Heller Ehrman, LLP.

Real Estate Operating Expenses

The $13.8 million increase in property operating expenses (real estate taxes, utilities, insurance, repairs and maintenance, cleaning and other property-related expenses) in the Total Property Portfolio is comprised of increases and decreases within four categories that comprise our Total Property Portfolio. Operating expenses for the Same Property Portfolio increased approximately $2.8 million, Properties Acquired increased approximately $1.0 million, Properties Placed In-Service increased approximately $10.0 million and Properties Sold decreased approximately $46,000.

Operating expenses from the Same Property Portfolio increased approximately $2.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2009 compared to 2008. Included in Same Property Portfolio operating expenses is an increase in real estate taxes of approximately $18.0 million, or 9%, which was predominately due to an increase in real estate taxes in the central business districts in Boston and New York City. This was offset by overall decreases in utilities expense of approximately $7.9 million, or 9%, and other property-related expenses of approximately $7.3 million of which approximately $3.0 million relates to repairs and maintenance.

The acquisition of 635 Massachusetts Avenue on September 26, 2008 increased operating expenses from Properties Acquired by approximately $1.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2009 compared to the year ended December 31, 2008.

Operating expenses from Properties Sold decreased by approximately $46,000 due to the transfer of Mountain View Research Park and Mountain View Technology Park to the Value-Added Fund on January 7, 2008. These properties have not been classified as discontinued operations due to our continuing involvement as the property manager for the properties and our continued ownership interest through the Value-Added Fund.

The increase in operating expenses from Properties Placed In-Service relates to fully placing in-service our 505 9^th Street development project in the first quarter of 2008, our 77 CityPoint and South of Market development projects during the fourth quarter of 2008, our One Preserve Parkway and Wisconsin Place Office development projects during the second quarter of 2009, our Democracy Tower development project during the third quarter of 2009 and our 701 Carnegie Center development project during the fourth quarter of 2009. The One Preserve Parkway development project had been partially placed in-service during the second quarter of 2008. Operating expenses from Properties Placed In-Service increased approximately $10.0 million, as detailed below:


Property	Quarter Placed In-Service	Real Estate Operating Expenses for the year ended December 31
Property	Quarter Placed In-Service	2009		2008		Change
		(in thousands)
505 9^th Street	First Quarter, 2008	$	6,929	$	5,672	$	1,257
South of Market	Fourth Quarter, 2008		7,057		3,466		3,591
77 CityPoint	Fourth Quarter, 2008		2,477		883		1,594
One Preserve Parkway	Second Quarter, 2009		1,257		517		740
Wisconsin Place Office	Second Quarter, 2009		1,777		—		1,777
Democracy Tower	Third Quarter, 2009		751		—		751
701 Carnegie Center	Fourth Quarter, 2009		294		—		294

Total		$	20,542	$	10,538	$	10,004

Hotel Net Operating Income

Net operating income for our hotel property decreased approximately $2.9 million, a 31.4% decrease for the year ended December 31, 2009 as compared to 2008. We expect our hotel net operating income for fiscal 2010 to be between $6.0 million and $6.5 million.

The following reflects our occupancy and rate information for our Cambridge Center Marriott hotel property for the year ended December 31, 2009 and 2008:


	2009			2008			Percentage Change
Occupancy		75.1	%		77.7	%	(3.3	)%
Average daily rate	$	185.29		$	217.70		(14.9	)%
Revenue per available room, REVPAR	$	139.19		$	169.08		(17.7	)%

Development and Management Services

Development and management services income increased approximately $4.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2009 compared to 2008. Development fees increased by approximately $4.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2009 compared to 2008 due primarily to development fees of approximately $6.1 million for our 20 F Street and 1111 North Capitol Street third-party development projects. This increase was offset by a decrease in other development fees of approximately $1.5 million, of which approximately $0.5 million is related to the completion and placing in-service of our Annapolis Junction joint venture development project. Management fees decreased by approximately $0.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2009 compared to 2008 due to the net effect of an approximately $1.0 million increase in management fee income offset by a decrease of approximately $1.2 million in service income of which approximately $1.0 million is attributable to a decrease in work orders and over time usage of HVAC in New York City. We expect third-party fee income for fiscal 2010 to be between $24 million and $27 million.

Interest and Other Income

Interest and other income decreased approximately $14.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2009 compared to 2008 primarily as a result of lower overall interest rates. The average cash balances for the year ended December 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008 were approximately $602.6 million and $447.1 million, respectively. However, the average interest rate for the year ended December 31, 2009 compared to December 31, 2008 decreased by approximately 1.70%. We currently have approximately $1.4 billion of cash in interest bearing accounts and therefore expect that our interest income will increase from 2009 unless and until such funds are deployed.

Other Expenses

General and Administrative Expense

General and administrative expenses increased approximately $3.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2009 compared to 2008. The increase was the net result of an approximately $8.5 million increase in payroll expense, offset by a decrease in professional fees and other general and administrative expenses of approximately $1.8 million and $1.3 million, respectively, and a decrease of approximately $2.3 million related to abandoned projects in 2008. Approximately $5.6 million of the payroll expenses increase was related to an increase in the value of our deferred compensation plan and approximately $3.1 million was related to the amortization associated with restricted stock equity awards. We expect our general and administrative expense for fiscal 2010 to be between $81 million and $83 million. The projected increase in our fiscal 2010 general and administrative expense is primarily due to approximately $4.5 million of incremental vesting of non-cash stock compensation and a reduction in capitalized wages.

On January 24, 2008, our compensation committee approved outperformance awards under the 1997 Plan to our officers and employees. These 2008 OPP Awards are part of a broad-based long-term incentive compensation program designed to provide our management team at several levels within the organization with the potential to earn equity awards subject to “outperforming” and creating shareholder value in a pay-for-performance structure. 2008 OPP Awards utilize total return to shareholders (“TRS”) over a three-year measurement period as the performance metric and include two years of time-based vesting after the end of the performance measurement period (subject to acceleration in certain events) as a retention tool. Recipients of 2008 OPP Awards will share in an outperformance pool if our TRS, including both share appreciation and dividends, exceeds absolute and relative hurdles over a three-year measurement period from February 5, 2008 to February 5, 2011, based on the average closing price of a share of our common stock of $92.8240 for the five trading days prior to and including February 5, 2008. The aggregate reward that recipients of all 2008 OPP Awards can earn, as measured by the outperformance pool, is subject to a maximum cap of $110 million, although OPP awards for an aggregate of up to approximately $104.8 million have been allocated to date and were granted on February 5, 2008. The balance remains available for future grants. Under guidance included in Accountings Standards Codification 718 “Compensation –Stock Compensation (formerly known as Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R) “Share-Based Payment”) the 2008 OPP Awards have an aggregate value of approximately $19.7 million, which amount will generally be amortized into earnings over the five-year plan period (although awards for retirement-eligible employees will be amortized over a three-year period). Because the 2008 OPP Units require us to outperform absolute and relative return thresholds, unless such thresholds have been met by the end of the applicable reporting period, we exclude the 2008 OPP Units from the diluted EPS calculation. See Notes 15 and 17 to the Consolidated Financial Statements. To the extent that the 2008 OPP Awards are not earned, and therefore the program is terminated, Boston Properties, Inc. will recognize an accounting charge of approximately $3.4 million during the first quarter of 2011.

Commencing in 2003, we began issuing restricted stock and/or LTIP Units, as opposed to granting stock options and restricted stock, under the 1997 Plan as our primary vehicle for employee equity compensation. An LTIP Unit is generally the economic equivalent of a share of our restricted stock. Employees vest in restricted stock and LTIP Units over a four- or five-year term (for awards granted between 2003 and November 2006, vesting is over a five-year term with annual vesting of 0%, 0%, 25%, 35% and 40%; and for awards granted after November 2006, vesting occurs in equal annual installments over a four-year term). Restricted stock and LTIP Units are valued based on observable market prices for similar instruments. Such value is recognized as an expense ratably over the corresponding employee service period. LTIP Units that were issued in January 2005 and any future LTIP Unit awards will be valued using an option pricing model in accordance with the provisions of guidance included in ASC 715 (formerly known as SFAS No. 123R). To the extent restricted stock or LTIP Units are forfeited prior to vesting, the corresponding previously recognized expense is reversed as an offset to “stock-based compensation.” Stock-based compensation associated with approximately $19.6 million of restricted stock and LTIP Units granted in February 2009, approximately $20.8 million of restricted stock and LTIP Units granted in February 2008 and approximately $14.4 million of restricted stock and LTIP Units granted in February 2007 will be incurred ratably over the four-year vesting period. Stock-based compensation associated with approximately $9.8 million of restricted stock and LTIP Units granted in April 2006 will be incurred ratably over the five-year vesting period. The foregoing amounts do not include an aggregate of approximately $11.0 million of stock-based compensation granted to Edward H. Linde, our former Chief Executive Officer, in the form of LTIP Units between 2006 and 2009, of which an aggregate of approximately $6.1 million was expensed through December 31, 2009 and an aggregate of approximately $4.9 million will be expensed in the first quarter of fiscal 2010 as a result of his passing on January 10, 2010.

Interest Expense

Interest expense for the Total Property Portfolio increased approximately $27.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2009 compared to 2008 as detailed below


Component	Change in interest expense for the year ended December 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008
	(in thousands)
Decreases to interest expense due to:
Repayment of mortgages	$	(22,308	)
Increase in capitalized interest costs		(2,530	)
Reduction in borrowings under our Unsecured Line of Credit		(4,852	)
Principal amortization of continuing debt and other (excluding senior notes and exchangeable senior notes)		(3,463	)

Total decreases to interest expense	$	(33,153	)
Increases to interest expense due to:
New mortgages / properties placed in-service	$	22,664
Issuance by our Operating Partnership of 3.625% exchangeable senior notes due 2014 on August 19, 2008 (excluding the ASC 470-20 (formerly known as FSP No. APB 14-1) interest expense)		17,736
Issuance by our Operating Partnership of 5.875% senior notes due 2019 on October 9, 2009		9,376
ASC 470-20 interest expense		10,888

Total increases to interest expense	$	60,664

Total change in interest expense	$	27,511

The following properties are included in the repayment of mortgages line item: Reston Corporate Center, Prudential Center, One and Two Embarcadero Center, Bedford Business Park, Reservoir Place, Ten Cambridge Center and 1301 New York Avenue. The following properties are included in the new mortgages/properties placed in-service line item: Four Embarcadero Center, South of Market, Democracy Tower, Wisconsin Office and Reservoir Place. As properties are placed in-service, we cease capitalizing interest and interest is then expensed.

Assuming no material changes in the amount or terms of our existing debt, we would anticipate our net interest expense to be between approximately $355 million to $365 million for fiscal 2010. This is higher than 2009 due to the incremental expenses associated with BPLP’s $700 million aggregate principal amount of 5.875% senior notes dues 2019 and a reduction in capitalized interest associated with the cessation of construction at 250 West 55^th Street. These items are offset by the additional capitalized interest associated with our projects currently under development. In addition, we expect that the cessation of capitalizing interest as a result of the suspension of construction at 250 West 55^th Street will result in approximately $25 million of additional annual interest expense until we restart the development project. The actual amount of our net interest expense for fiscal 2010 will be impacted by, among other things, any additional indebtedness we incur, any pre-payments or repurchases of existing indebtedness, fluctuations in interest rates and any changes in our development activity.

Effective January 1, 2009, we adopted ASC 470-20 (formerly known as FSP No. APB 14-1) that requires the liability and equity components of convertible debt instruments that may be settled in cash upon conversion (including partial cash settlement) to be separately accounted for in a manner that reflects the issuer’s

nonconvertible debt borrowing rate. See Note 8 to the Consolidated Financial Statements. ASC 470-20 requires companies to retrospectively apply the requirements of the pronouncement to all periods presented. As a result of applying ASC 470-20, we reported additional non-cash interest expense of approximately $38.6 million, $27.8 million, $19.4 million and $4.1 million for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008, 2007 and 2006, respectively.

The incremental interest expense for each reporting period is expected to be as follows:


For the year ending December 31:	Approximate Amount
	(in thousands)
2010		$41,200
2011		43,900
2012		29,800
2013		23,000
2014		2,500

At December 31, 2009, our variable rate debt consisted of construction loans at our South of Market, Democracy Tower, Wisconsin Place Office and Atlantic Wharf (formerly Russia Wharf) construction projects, as well as our borrowings under our Unsecured Line of Credit and our secured financing at Reservoir Place. The following summarizes our outstanding debt as of December 31, 2009 compared with December 31, 2008:


	December 31,
	2009			2008
	(dollars in thousands)
Debt Summary:
Balance
Fixed rate	$	6,326,350		$	5,707,392
Variable rate		393,421			385,492

Total	$	6,719,771		$	6,092,884

Percent of total debt:
Fixed rate		94.15	%		93.67	%
Variable rate		5.85	%		6.33	%

Total		100.00	%		100.00	%

GAAP weighted average interest rate at end of period:
Fixed rate		6.12	%		6.15	%
Variable rate		1.98	%		3.62	%

Total		5.87	%		5.99	%

Coupon/Stated weighted-average interest rate at end of period:
Fixed rate		5.43	%		5.43	%
Variable rate		1.75	%		3.07	%

Total		5.21	%		5.28	%

Depreciation and Amortization

Depreciation and amortization expense for the Total Property Portfolio increased approximately $17.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2009 compared to 2008. Approximately $5.6 million related to an increase in the Same Property Portfolio that was predominately due to accelerated amortization related to tenant terminations in New York City, approximately $3.4 million of the increase related to Properties Acquired and the remaining increase of approximately $8.5 million was attributed to Properties Placed In-Service.

Capitalized Costs

Costs directly related to the development of rental properties are not included in our operating results. These costs are capitalized and included in real estate assets on our Consolidated Balance Sheets and amortized over their useful lives. Capitalized development costs include interest, wages, property taxes, insurance and other project costs incurred during the period of development. Capitalized wages for the year ended December 31, 2009 and 2008 were approximately $11.3 million and $12.2 million, respectively. These costs are not included in the general and administrative expense discussed above. Interest capitalized for the year ended December 31, 2009 and 2008 were approximately $48.8 million and $46.3 million, respectively. These costs are not included in the interest expense referenced above. Due to the suspension of construction at 250 West 55^th Street late in the fourth quarter of 2009, we expect our 2010 capitalized interest to decrease and we expect a reduction in capitalized wages of approximately $2.5 million in 2010.

Loss from Suspension of Development

Between April 1, 2009 and December 31, 2009, we recognized approximately $1.1 million of additional costs associated with the suspension of development. In addition, we expect to recognize approximately $700,000 of additional costs during the first quarter of 2010 associated with the suspension of development. These costs have been and similar future costs will be classified as real estate operating expenses and not as loss from suspension of development.

Net Derivative Losses

On September 9, 2008, we executed an interest rate lock agreement with lenders at an all-in fixed rate, inclusive of the credit spread, of 6.10% per annum for an eight-year, $375.0 million loan collateralized by our Four Embarcadero Center property located in San Francisco, California. Our interest rate hedging program contemplated a financing with a ten-year term and, as a result, under guidance included in ASC 815 “Derivatives and Hedging,” (formerly known as SFAS No. 133, “Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities”), during the third quarter of 2008 we recognized a net derivative loss of approximately $6.6 million representing the partial ineffectiveness of our interest rate contracts. On November 13, 2008, we closed on the Four Embarcadero Center mortgage. Under our interest rate hedging program, we will reclassify into earnings over the eight-year term of the loan as an increase in interest expense approximately $26.4 million (approximately $3.3 million per year) of the amounts recorded on our Consolidated Balance Sheets within Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss, which amounts represent the effective portion of the applicable interest rate hedging contracts.

Our interest rate hedging program also contemplated obtaining additional financing of at least $150.0 million by the end of 2008. In accordance with guidance included in ASC 815 (formerly known as SFAS No. 133) as amended and interpreted, we determined that we would be unable to complete the financing by the required date under our hedging program. As a result, during the fourth quarter of 2008, we recognized a net derivative loss of approximately $7.2 million representing the ineffectiveness of our remaining interest rate hedging contracts.

In addition, during the year ended December 31, 2008, we modified the estimated dates with respect to our anticipated financings under our interest rate hedging program. As a result, we recognized a net derivative loss of approximately $3.3 million representing the partial ineffectiveness of the interest rate contracts.

Losses (Gains) from Investments in Securities

We account for investments in trading securities at fair value, with gains or losses resulting from changes in fair value recognized currently in earnings. The designation of trading securities is generally determined at acquisition. During the year ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, investment in securities is comprised of an investment in an unregistered money market fund and investments in an account associated with our deferred compensation plan. In December 2007, the unregistered money market fund suspended cash redemptions by investors; investors could elect in-kind redemptions of the underlying securities or maintain their investment in the fund and receive distributions as the underlying securities matured or were liquidated by the fund sponsor. As a result, we retained this investment for a longer term than originally intended, and the valuation of our investment was subject to changes in market conditions. Because interests in this fund were valued at less than their $1.00 par value, we recognized losses (gains) of approximately ($0.2) million and $1.4 million on our investment during the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively. As of December 31, 2009, we no longer had investments in this unregistered money market fund.

The remainder of the losses (gains) from investments in securities in 2009 and 2008 related to investments that we have made to reduce our market risk relating to a deferred compensation plan that we maintain for our officers. Under this deferred compensation plan, each officer who is eligible to participate is permitted to defer a portion of the officer’s current income on a pre-tax basis and receive a tax-deferred return on these deferrals based on the performance of specific investments selected by the officer. In order to reduce our market risk relating to this plan, we typically acquire, in a separate account that is not restricted as to its use, similar or identical investments as those selected by each officer. This enables us to generally match our liabilities to our officers under the deferred compensation plan with equivalent assets and thereby limit our market risk. The performance of these investments is recorded as loss (gain) from investments in securities. During the year ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively, we recognized losses (gains) of $(2.2) million and $3.2 million on these investment. By comparison, our general and administrative expense increased (decreased) by $2.4 million and $(3.2) million during the year ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively, as a result of increases and decreases in our liability under our deferred compensation plan that were associated with the performance of the specific investments selected by our officers participating in the plan.

Losses from Early Extinguishments of Debt

On June 9, 2009, we used available cash to repay the mortgage loan collateralized by our Reservoir Place property located in Waltham, Massachusetts totaling approximately $47.8 million. There was no prepayment penalty associated with the repayment. In accordance with EITF 98-1, the principal amount had been adjusted upon acquisition of the property to reflect the fair value of the assumed note. Due to the repayment of the mortgage, we recognized a gain of approximately $32,000 related to the write off of the remaining fair value balance.

On June 26, 2009, we used available cash to repay the mortgage loan collateralized by our Ten Cambridge Center property located in Cambridge, Massachusetts totaling approximately $30.1 million. We paid a prepayment penalty totaling approximately $0.5 million in connection with the repayment and wrote off approximately $26,000 of unamortized deferred financing costs.

On August 3, 2009, we used available cash to repay the mortgage loans collateralized by our 1301 New York Avenue property located in Washington, DC totaling approximately $20.5 million and we wrote off approximately $16,000 of unamortized deferred financing costs.

Income (loss) from unconsolidated joint ventures

During December 2008, we recognized non-cash impairment charges which represented the other-than-temporary decline in the fair values below the carrying values of certain of our investments in unconsolidated joint ventures. In accordance with guidance in Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 323 “Investments—Equity Method and Joint Ventures” (“ASC 323”) (formerly known as Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 18 “The Equity Method of Accounting for Investments in Common Stock” (APB No. 18)), a loss in value of an investment under the equity method of accounting, which is other than a temporary decline, must be recognized. As a result, we recognized non-cash impairment charges of approximately $31.9 million, $74.3 million, $45.1 million and $13.8 million on our investments in 540 Madison Avenue, Two Grand Central Tower, 125 West 55^th Street and the Value-Added Fund, respectively. In addition, in June 2009 and December 2009, we recognized additional non-cash impairment charges on our investment in the Value-Added Fund of approximately $7.4 million and $2.0 million, respectively. If the fair value of our investments deteriorates further, we could recognize additional impairment charges which may be material.

In addition, during December 2009, our Value-Added Fund recognized a non-cash impairment charge in accordance with the guidance in ASC 360 (formerly known as SFAS No. 144) related to our One and Two Circle Star Way properties in San Carlos, California totaling approximately $24.6 million, of which our share was approximately $4.2 million, which amount reflects the reduction in our basis of approximately $2.0 million from previous impairment losses. The One and Two Circle Star Way properties will be vacant by the end of February 2010 and leasing activity continues to be challenging, with market rents declining significantly. The Value-Added Fund has a mortgage loan collateralized by the properties which is non-recourse to us and which expires in September 2013 and includes a cash escrow in place to fund the interest expense and carrying costs through mid-2010. The Value-Added Fund is currently in discussions with the lender to modify the loan and as a result believes that the carrying value of the properties may not be recoverable. Accordingly, the Value-Added Fund recognized the non-cash impairment charge to reduce the net book value of the properties to their estimated fair market value at December 31, 2009.

During December 2008, an unconsolidated joint venture in which we have a 50% interest suspended development activity on its Eighth Avenue and 46th Street project located in New York City. The proposed project was comprised of an assemblage of land parcels and air-rights, including contracts to acquire land parcels and air-rights, on which the joint venture was to construct a Class A office property. As a result, we recognized a charge totaling approximately $23.2 million (including $2.9 million of non-cash impairment charges in accordance with guidance in ASC 323), which represented our share of land and air-rights impairment losses, forfeited contract deposits and previously incurred planning and pre-development costs.

On June 9, 2008, we completed the acquisition of the General Motors Building for a purchase price of approximately $2.8 billion. On August 12, 2008, we completed the acquisitions of 540 Madison Avenue and Two Grand Central Tower located in New York City, New York for an aggregate purchase price of approximately $705.0 million. On August 13, 2008, we completed the acquisition of 125 West 55^th Street located in New York City, New York for an aggregate price of $444.0 million. Each acquisition was completed through a joint venture with US Real Estate Opportunities I, L.P. and Meraas Capital LLC. We have a 60% interest in each venture and provide customary property management and leasing services for each venture.

The following table presents actual financial information for the joint ventures for the year ended December 31, 2009 for the General Motors Building and 540 Madison Avenue, Two Grand Central Tower and 125 West 55^th Street, respectively. These acquisitions increased our income from unconsolidated joint ventures by approximately $19.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2009 compared to 2008.


	The General Motors Building for the year ended December 31, 2009			540 Madison Avenue, Two Grand Central Tower, 125 West 55^th Street for the year ended December 31, 2009
	(in thousands)			(in thousands)
Base rent and recoveries from tenants	$	189,935		$	105,478
Straight-line rent		16,831			9,632
Fair value lease revenue		139,159			11,413
Parking and other		2,085			1,539

Total rental revenue		348,010			128,062
Operating expenses		72,914			40,106

Revenue less operating expenses		275,096			87,956
Interest expense		149,596			32,366
Fair value interest expense		8,267			5,308
Depreciation and amortization		151,686			46,131

Income (Loss) before elimination of inter-entity interest on partner loan		(34,453	)		4,151

Our share of Net Income (Loss) (60%)		(20,672	)		2,491
Basis differential		—			8,668
Elimination of inter-entity interest on partner loan		32,342			—

Income from unconsolidated joint ventures (60%)	$	11,670		$	11,159

Gains on sales of real estate and other assets

Pursuant to the purchase and sale agreement related to the sale of 280 Park Avenue in New York City in 2006, we entered into a master lease agreement with the buyer at closing. Under the master lease agreement, we guaranteed that the buyer will receive at least a minimum amount of base rent from approximately 74,340 square feet of space during the ten-year period following the expiration of the leases for this space. The leases for this space expired at various times between June 2006 and October 2007. The aggregate amount of base rent we guaranteed over the entire period from 2006 to 2017 is approximately $67.3 million. During the year ended December 31, 2008, we signed new qualifying leases for approximately 17,454 net rentable square feet of the remaining master lease obligation, resulting in the recognition of approximately $23.4 million. During the year ended December 31, 2009, we signed no new qualifying leases and our remaining master lease obligation totaled approximately $0.9 million.

On April 14, 2008, we sold a parcel of land located in Washington, DC for approximately $33.7 million. We had previously entered into a development management agreement with the buyer to develop a Class A office property on the parcel totaling approximately 165,000 net rentable square feet. Due to our involvement in the construction of the project, the gain on sale estimated to total $23.4 million was deferred and is being recognized over the project construction period generally based on the percentage of total project costs incurred to estimated total project costs. As a result, we recognized a gain on sale during the year ended December 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008 of approximately $11.8 million and $9.9 million, respectively. We expect to recognize the remaining $1.7 million of gain during fiscal 2010.

Noncontrolling interests in property partnerships

Noncontrolling interests in property partnerships increased by approximately $0.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2009 compared to 2008. Noncontrolling interests in property partnerships consist of the outside equity owners’ interests in the income from our 505 9^th Street and our Wisconsin Place Office properties.

Noncontrolling interest—common units of the Operating Partnership

Noncontrolling interest—common units of the Operating Partnership increased by approximately $21.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2009 compared to 2008 primarily due to an increase in allocable income.

Comparison of the year ended December 31, 2008 to the year ended December 31, 2007

The table below shows selected operating information for the Same Property Portfolio and the Total Property Portfolio. The Same Property Portfolio consists of 115 properties, including properties acquired or placed in-service on or prior to January 1, 2007 and owned through December 31, 2008, totaling approximately 28.9 million net rentable square feet of space (excluding square feet of structured parking). The Total Property Portfolio includes the effects of the other properties either placed in-service, acquired or repositioned after January 1, 2007 or disposed of on or prior to December 31, 2008. Properties Placed In-Service includes our 505 9^th Street joint venture project. In connection with partially placing this property in-service, we consolidated the joint venture entity that owns the property as of October 1, 2007 due to the involvement we have in the venture once the property is operational. The Same Property Portfolio includes our Cambridge Center Marriott hotel property, but does not include the Long Wharf Marriott hotel property, which was sold on March 23, 2007. This table includes a reconciliation from the Same Property Portfolio to the Total Property Portfolio by also providing information for the year ended December 31, 2008 and 2007 with respect to the properties which were acquired, placed in-service, repositioned or sold.

Same Property Portfolio

Properties
Sold

Properties
Acquired

Properties
Placed
In-Service

Properties
Repositioned

Total Property Portfolio

(dollars in thousands)

2008

2007

Increase/
(Decrease)

%
Change

2008

2007

2008

2007

2008