DOCSLIB.ORG

Mr. Edward Curry Executive Director Zoning Secretariat District Building, Room 11 1350 Pennsylvania a Venue, N.W

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mr. Edward Curry Executive Director Zoning Secretariat District Building, Room 11 1350 Pennsylvania a Venue, N.W FOGGY BOTTOM AND WEST END ADVISORY NEIGHBORHOOD COMMISSION 1920 G STREET, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 • (202) 659-0011 March 7, 1988 Mr. Edward Curry Executive Director Zoning Secretariat District Building, Room 11 1350 Pennsylvania A venue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 Re: Z.C. Case No. 87-18M/86-1C Dear Mr. Curry: This letter and the attached exhibits respond both to the summary /abstract report filed by the Office of Planning on February 17, 1988, in the above­ referenced case and to the additional material submitted on February 29, 198~ by the applicant -- Boston Properties -- in the same case. In exercising our righls as a party under the Zoning Regulations to respond to Boston Properties' submission, ANC 2A would like to acknowledge the technical assistance provided by the Washington, D.C., Justice for Janitors Organizing Committ'ee, Local 525 of the Service Employees International Union. We reiterate our unequivocal opposition to the approval of Boston Properties' application for a Planned Unit Development at 25th and N Streets, N.W. (Square 24, lot 110). We see no merit in the total package prepared by the developer and we ask that it be rejected. First we should like to address the paper submitted by the Office of Planning. Though necessarily there will be some repetition in our comments on it and on the Boston Properties submission of February 29, we believe it important to comment directly on each so there will be no doubt about our position. We note with dismay that the Office of Planning does not even address the matter of the covenant though in the past it urged ANC 2A to mute its objections to the transfer of all commercial FAR from lot 110 to lot 111 so that the U.S. News and World Report building could be constructed to its present configuration, thereby enabling the developer to increase his profit there. We would note that both ANC 2A and ANC 2B oppose the setting aside of the covenant. ANC 2B, as you are aware, has within its boundaries lot 802 on Square 35, which would be changed from mixed use to residential under the applicant's proposal. As we have stated previously, we believe the proximity of the 25th and N Street site to extensive and varied recreational facilities, a school and places of ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia CASE NO.87-18 EXHIBIT NO.83 employment for potential occupants of a residential building there make it uniquely suited for residential use. It would also create a logical link with other nearby housing and would go far to improve the safety and ambience of the area, thus helping to restore to the West End some of the residential quality which has been steadily eroding in recent years. The Office of Planning report ignores all that as well as the fact that other proposals for the West End are beginning to include housing in their plans. It is our contention that lot 110 is an important site for residential construction and that the applicant should be required to meet his obligations as provided in the covenant. Adding some housing to an already approved mixed use project does not represent linkage as we understand it, and it should be clear both to the Commission and the Off ice of Planning that Boston Properties' proposal would result in a net loss of housing since relatively few additional units would be created at 23rd and N Streets to compensate for the waiver of the requirement for a strictly residential building at 25th and N Streets. In fact, about 100,000 square feet of residential development potential would be lost. Nor do we agree with the Office of Planning that Alternative A is preferable to Alternative B as set forth in the application. Clearly we are opposed to both, but we find Alternative A even more objectionable than B. It is not in character with the adjacent Bureau of National Affairs building and would seriously dwarf it. We do not share the enthusiasm of the Office of Planning for the amenities proffered by Boston Properties either. Most are meaningless, though in the self­ interest of the developer, and both singly and in combination they cannot compensate for the negative effects of the proposal on West End development. We think the Office of Planning report reflects a singular disregard for the community and its citizens and we trust the Commission will recognize its shallowness. Now let us turn to the February 29 submission by the applicant. Boston Properties again has ignored the seriousness of its attempt to renege on the covenant on lot 110. The applicant asks the Commission and the entire Government of the District of Columbia to set a dangerous precedent that can lead to an assault on the public trust. Given this possibility, the applicant's proposal must be scrutinized with great care. We have undertaken such a review and have come to the conclusion that Boston Properties' proposal can not meet this necessarily high standard. The applicant supports its extraordinary request to be released from the covenant restricting lot 110 on Square 24 to residential use by citing economic and design constraints. These conditions were self-imposed and are overstated. A careful analysis of the costs and benefits associated with the proposed PUD reveals the shallowness of the assertion that residential development of lot 110 is infeasible. Boston Properties overstates the land value of lot 110 To substantiate the contention that residential development of lot 110 is infeasible, Boston Properties presented a cash flow analysis for residential condominium development on lot 110 that relied on a 1987 land value of $7.9 million.1 This value is not supported by publicly available documents: lot 110, according to property tax assessment records, has a market value of $5.8 million during the current 1988 tax year. Boston Properties thus has overstated the land value by as much as $2.1 million. (The applicant also has presented other land value figures, all of which are greater than $5.8 million.) Boston Properties' estimated "loss" from residential use of lot 110 is high By overstating the land value of the site, the two residential pro formas presented by the applicant overestimate by $0.9 million or $2.1 million the cash flow loss from residential development of lot 110. This misrepresentation leads us to question the validity of the other cost and income figures contained in Boston Properties' residential financial analyses for lot 110. Even if these other figures are correct, the applicant's estimated pre-tax cash flow "loss" of $4.1 million from residential condominium development of lot 110 shrinks to a $2.0 million loss when based on an accurate land value. Boston Properties forgets that the current proposal covers 3 lots There are more errors in Boston Properties' analysis than simply the unreliable estimates related solely to lot 110. The commercial FAR and the associated subsidy transferred to lot 111 also need to be considered. Once again the applicant resorts to selective inclusion and financial manipulation in its presentation of the relationship between these two lots on Square 24. The applicant appears to have forgotten its own proposal when asserting that the "simplest way to understand the relationship is to think of the property [on Square 24] as a single lot containing approximately 50,000 square feet of land zoned CR." This is misleading. The proposal under consideration involves three lots -- two on Square 24 (lots 110 and 111) and one on Square 35 (lot 802) -- with approximately 75,000 square feet of land combined. And the simplest way to understand Boston Properties' proposal is to view it as a request to build two office buildings and one residential building, rather than the one office building and two residential buildings allowed as a matter of right. Boston Properties mistakenly argues that land alone must catry the subsidy for residential development Boston Properties states that, because the land cost of lot 111 reflected its commercial development capacity, there is no subsidy available for residential development of lot 110. If commercial value was paid for the lot 111 vacant land, the cost of lot 110 land then reflects residential use potential only -- lot 110 1 Base figures and calculations described in the text of this letter are presented in Figure l; the exhibits to this letter in which the base figures are presented are also identified in Figure 1. would have a lower value per square foot of land than if it had any commercial development potential. But, more importantly, Boston Properties' assumption that the commercial-residential land value differential alone is to carry the subsidy for residential development on lot 110 is patently absurd. The applicant has ignored the availability of subsidies from cash gains from the already completed and occupied commercial improvements on lot 111. Boston Properties fails to present figures on such gains yet they are relevant -- as it knows. For example, in its original, approved PUD proposal for lot 802 on Square 35, Boston Properties' cash flow analysis for the mixed use building shows a pre­ tax positive cash flow of $11.3 million over 11 years, while the developer showed a loss of $3.3 millioh for a building solely devoted to residential use on the site. (See Exhibit 5.) Under that original proposal, the cash flow gains from the entire office building element -- not just the land value.differential -- provided the positive cash flow for the project as a whole. Boston Properties ignores normal gains from lot 111, interest sale of $80 million The applicant may not currently have any ownership interest in the improvements or land on lot 111, and, thus, there may be no way to match year by year or dollar for dollar the positive cash flow from the office building on lot 111 with the projected "losses" from residential use of lot 110.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Zoning for Dollars: New Rules for an Old Game? Comments on the Municipal Art Society and Nollan Cases Jerold S
    Urban Law Annual ; Journal of Urban and Contemporary Law Volume 39 January 1991 Zoning for Dollars: New Rules for an Old Game? Comments on the Municipal Art Society and Nollan Cases Jerold S. Kayden Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_urbanlaw Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Jerold S. Kayden, Zoning for Dollars: New Rules for an Old Game? Comments on the Municipal Art Society and Nollan Cases, 39 Wash. U. J. Urb. & Contemp. L. 3 (1991) Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_urbanlaw/vol39/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Urban Law Annual ; Journal of Urban and Contemporary Law by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ZONING FOR DOLLARS: NEW RULES FOR AN OLD GAME? COMMENTS ON THE MUNICIPAL AR T SOCIETY AND NOLLAN CASES Jerold S. Kayden * Faced with mounting social needs and continuing fiscal constraints, more and more cities "mint" money through their zoning codes to fi- nance a wide array of public amenities. Through the land use regula- tory technique formally known as "incentive zoning," cities grant private real estate developers the legal right to disregard zoning restric- tions in return for their voluntary agreement to provide urban design features such as plazas, atriums, and parks, and social facilities and services such as affordable housing, day care centers, and job training. Since its inception some thirty years ago,' incentive zoning has enjoyed broad support from developers and their attorneys, avoiding the legal challenges commonly brought against land use regulations requiring * A.B.
    [Show full text]
  • 020 by the Numbers Se FINAL.Indd
    BY THE NUMBERS Wall Street fallout shakes real estate investment trusts in New York City and beyond 1. The average annual 2. The average annual 3. The amount of office 4. The percentage drop in returns generated by REITs returns expected from space held by Merrill Lynch value of Brookfield Properties over the past three decades REIT investments at World Financial Center, a shares on September 15 after for investors: over the next year: Brookfield Properties-owned Merrill Lynch was acquired complex: by Bank of America, the REIT’s largest one-day decline in eight years: 13.8% -10% 4.2 million sq. ft. 18% 5. The percentage 6. The percentage that 7. The amount of office 8. The percentage of of Boston Properties’ financial services firms make space Citigroup occupies at SL Green’s net operating New York City office up in SL Green’s office portfo- properties owned by SL Green, income that comes from holdings occupied lio, the largest industry which accounts for 13.4 per- exposure to the Manhattan by financial services represented in it: cent of the REIT’s revenue: office market: tenants: 22% 42% 5 million sq. ft. 86% 9. One analyst’s 10. The percentage drop 11. The dollar value of 12. The average daily dollar forecasted percentage drop in the value of SL Green stock all institutionally owned trading volume for publicly in office rents from their on September 15 after commercial real estate in the traded REITs in July 2008, recent peak for Manhattan, Lehman Brothers went U.S. owned by REITs, compared to $892 million which could hurt the city’s bankrupt, the REIT’s biggest which account for 10 to in July 2003 and office REITs: one-day fall ever: 15 percent of the total: $413 million in July 1998: 20% 20% $600 billion $4.6 billion 13.
    [Show full text]
  • Westward Whoa!.Html
    Westward Whoa! On a recent evening at the 92nd Street Y, Stephen Ross, chairman of the Related Companies, reflected on four decades of transformation—for the city, where he has built more apartments than almost any other developer of his generation, and also for himself. In September, Mr. Ross, 72, stepped down as the CEO of the once-humble affordable housing outfit he transformed into a luxury real estate behemoth. Not that he’s stepping aside. There he was a few weeks later, alongside Mayor Bloomberg and Council Speaker Christine Quinn on the formerly desolate Far West Side, breaking ground on the Hudson Yards project, a glass and steel city within a city that is actually larger, in terms of square footage, than downtown Portland or downtown Baltimore. “What’s good for the city is the first thing,” Mr. Ross told the audience at the Y. “I think if you really take that into consideration, the opportunities open up.” On stage, Mr. Ross wore a navy suit and pink tie and sat next to fellow real estate mogul William Mack of AREA Property Advisors, as Businessweek senior editor Diane Brady asked the two friends about their long careers. About a decade ago, Messrs. Ross and Mack teamed up to build the Time Warner Center, the twin-towered behemoth that rose on Columbus Circle in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, an unwitting glass echo of what had been lost. Before the project began to rise, doubts were widespread, but Mr. Ross recognized a unique combination of location, transportation and public support that has become the hallmark of his success.
    [Show full text]
  • Road Business Association 1777 Columbia Road, NW Washington
    18th & Columbia "'Road Business Association 1777 Columbia Road, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20009 ~:r-..i Established 1920 September 8, 1987 ~ . ,.--:, (,/'j ~ . ,) "'.'i".I Mr. Edward L. Curry, Acting Executive -0?"leers Direct9r., Zoning Secretariat Cleesident D. C. Z,oning Comrnission John Orclno ~lgnone Freres Caterers District Building, Room 11-A ""'ff77 Columbia Ad., N.W. ;}50 Pennsylvania Ave.!. NVI 25-0332.. Washington, D. C. 20001,,J. e President rbert White RE: Boston Properties II1 PUD 1 Fuller St., N.W. Zoning Case No. 87-10 C 234-8948 Dear IVIr. Curry: Vice President HIida Rivas Churrerla Madrid Restaurant We submit this comment on the above referenced zoning 2505 Champlain St., N.W. case. The Washington Post (Aug. 22, 1987) reported, we 483-4441 Vice Presldflnt quote: "Boston .Propertles said it will donate up to Herb Kwash $2.2 million to a nonprofit organization that provides Midtown Phannacy 1841 Columbia Ad., N.W. housing opportunities for low-to-moderate-income families 265«333 elsewhere in the citv •••• the donation amounts to about Treasurer $15 per square foot. Y, David Walstrom Saxltone Tape Sales 1ne Columbia Ad., N.W. While we support the linkage concept we seriously 462-0800 question whether this $15 per square foot donation should Secretary be accepted, especially in view of the enormous value of J. George Frain 1789 Lanier Pl., N.W. the land which is the focus of Boston Properties linkage 387-3737 proposal. Board of Dlnlctcn Robert Blair In this connection we submit herewith a report in Outlook Clothiers the Wall Street Journal (July 31, 1987) which shows that 1767 Columbia Ad., N.W.
    [Show full text]
  • Murdoch Empire Rocked Though the Murdoch Family Trust Controls Ed by Industry Insiders and Investors Alike
    20110718-NEWS--0001-NAT-CCI-CN_-- 7/15/2011 8:25 PM Page 1 INSIDE REPORT TOP STORIES REAL ESTATE Picture this: Staten Hospitals Shift Spending Island is becoming Top Office Leases and Property Sales an artist magnet ® NEIGHBORHOODS, PAGE 12 PAGE 17-22 Barclays Center VOL. XXVII, NO. 29 WWW.CRAINSNEWYORK.COM JULY 18-24, 2011 PRICE: $3.00 makes play for profits PAGE 2 These new guests will create a buzz at the InterContinental PAGE 4 One way Walmart could enter NYC: Buy Rite Aid chain IN THE MARKETS, PAGE 4 WEALTH OF GREEN: Battery Park City is Are Jann Wenner’s flanked by riverfront mags for sale? parks full of playing kids, strollers and picnicking NEW YORK, NEW YORK, P. 6 families. THE NEW BUSINESS LIVES GOTHAM GIGS Salvaging hardwoods NEW DOWNTOWN from the wreckage P. 31 buck ennis ● ANNE FISHER Tech challenged? Help types who made up their social circle, the family is is on the way P. 31 Vibrant, sustainable, moving back to the neighborhood. Now a lively stretch filled with eclectic restaurants, Stone Street is Murdoch ● MOVERS & SHAKERS and family-friendly, transformed but no less appealing. Newmark’s Jeffrey Gural “I was blown away,”said Mr.Pasquarelli.“It defines is off to the races P. 32 lower Manhattan is the change downtown.” empire ● GAEL GREENE eats well From the eateries on Stone Street to the luxury res- at Grandma’s house P. 34 now an urban model idential buildings to the hotels to the towers rising at the World Trade Center site, signs of lower Manhat- rocked tan’s blossoming are unmistakable.
    [Show full text]
  • CITICORP CENTER (Now 601 LEXINGTON AVENUE
    Landmarks Preservation Commission December 6, 2016, Designation List 491 LP-2582 CITICORP CENTER (now 601 LEXINGTON AVENUE) including SAINT PETER’S CHURCH 601 Lexington Avenue (aka 601-635 Lexington Avenue, 139-153 East 53rd Street, 140-160 East 54th Street, 884-892 Third Avenue), Manhattan Built, 1973-78; architects, Hugh A. Stubbins & Associates and Emery Roth & Sons Landmark Site: Borough of Manhattan Tax Map Block 1308, Lot 7501 (1001, 1002, 1005) On September 13, 2016, the Landmarks Preservation Commission held a public hearing on the proposed designation of Citicorp Center (now 601 Lexington Avenue), including Saint Peter’s Church, and the proposed designation of the related landmark site. The hearing had been duly advertised in accordance with provisions of law. Four people spoke in support of designation, including representatives of Saint Peter’s Church, Manhattan Borough President Gale A. Brewer, the New York Landmarks Conservancy, and the Municipal Art Society of New York. The principal owner, Boston Properties, and the Real Estate Board of New York submitted written testimony in support of designation. Summary The former Citicorp Center is a major example of late 20th century modern architecture. Designed by Hugh A. Stubbins & Associates, in association with Emery Roth & Sons, this early mixed-use complex contains three interlocking buildings: a 59-story office tower, a 6-story retail-and-office structure, and Saint Peter’s Church. Commissioned by First National City Bank (now Citibank), the 915-foot-tall office tower is one of New York City’s most recognizable skyscrapers. Important for its slanted top, four “super” columns that rise over 100 feet and generous public spaces, it plays a major role on the Manhattan skyline.
    [Show full text]
  • Boston Properties 2013 Annual Report
    Boston Properties 2013 Annual Report Boston New York San Francisco Washington, DC On the Cover Pictured top: Embarcadero Center, San Francisco, CA (left) John Hancock Tower, Boston, MA (right) Pictured bottom: 767 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY (left) 2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC (right) Contents IFC Company Description 1-7 Letter to Shareholders 8 Board of Directors and Officers 9 Form 10-K IBC Corporate Information About Boston Properties Boston Properties, Inc., a self-administered and self-managed The Company acquires, develops and manages its properties real estate investment trust (REIT), is one of the largest owners, through full-service regional offices. Its property portfolio managers and developers of Class A office properties in the is comprised primarily of Class A office properties and also United States, with a significant presence in fourmarkets: includes one hotel, three residential properties and four retail Boston, New York, San Francisco and Washington, DC. The properties. Boston Properties is well-known for its in-house Company was founded in 1970 by Mortimer B. Zuckerman building management expertise and responsiveness to tenants’ and Edward H. Linde in Boston, where it maintains its needs. The Company holds a superior track record in developing headquarters. Boston Properties became a public company premium Central Business District (CBD) office buildings, in June 1997 and is traded on the New York Stock Exchange suburban office centers and build-to-suit projects for the U.S. under the symbol “BXP.” government and a diverse array of creditworthy tenants. This Annual Report contains “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the federal securities laws.
    [Show full text]
  • BOSTON PROPERTIES INC Form 10-K Annual Report Filed 2019-02-28
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION FORM 10-K Annual report pursuant to section 13 and 15(d) Filing Date: 2019-02-28 | Period of Report: 2018-12-31 SEC Accession No. 0001656423-19-000006 (HTML Version on secdatabase.com) FILER BOSTON PROPERTIES INC Mailing Address Business Address 800 BOYLSTON STREET 800 BOYLSTON STREET CIK:1037540| IRS No.: 042473675 | State of Incorp.:DE | Fiscal Year End: 1231 SUITE 1900 SUITE 1900 Type: 10-K | Act: 34 | File No.: 001-13087 | Film No.: 19644485 BOSTON MA 02199 BOSTON MA 02199 SIC: 6798 Real estate investment trusts 6172363300 BOSTON PROPERTIES LTD PARTNERSHIP Mailing Address Business Address 800 BOYLSTON STREET 800 BOYLSTON STREET CIK:1043121| IRS No.: 000000000 | State of Incorp.:DE | Fiscal Year End: 1231 SUITE 1900 SUITE 1900 Type: 10-K | Act: 34 | File No.: 000-50209 | Film No.: 19644484 BOSTON MA 02199 BOSTON MA 02199 SIC: 6798 Real estate investment trusts 6172363300 Copyright © 2019 www.secdatabase.com. All Rights Reserved. Please Consider the Environment Before Printing This Document Table of Contents UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 10-K ý ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018 OR ¨ 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.) Commission File Number: 0-50209 (Boston Properties Limited Partnership) BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. BOSTON PROPERTIES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (Exact name of Registrants as specified in its charter) Boston Properties, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Washington DC Development Report: 2019/2020
    DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2019 / 2020 EDITION In Public-Private Partnership with CITY RIDGE / DEVELOPED AND OWNED BY ROADSIDE DEVELOPMENT / NORTH AMERICA SEKISUI HOUSE AMERICA / NORTH DEVELOPMENT ROADSIDE BY AND OWNED CITY RIDGE / DEVELOPED The Washington DC Economic Partnership would like to acknowledge our public and private sector board members whose continued financial support and guidance has made the Washington, DC Development Report 2019/2020 Edition possible. PUBLIC SECTOR PARTNERS OFFICE OF THE CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER PRIVATE SECTOR PARTNERS BOARD MEMBERS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Raj Aggarwal Daniel Duke Chase W. Rynd Board Chairman, Think Local First Prinicipal Mid-Atlantic Region, Executive Director, John Falcicchio / Co-Chair Joseph Askew Bohler Engineering National Building Museum Interim Deputy Mayor, Vice President, Government Relations, Josh Etter Tara Scanlon Office of the Deputy Mayor for Verizon Director, Development, Partner, Holland & Knight Planning and Economic Development Kristina Bouweiri Foulger Pratt Shawn Seaman Richard Lake / Co-Chair President & CEO, Reston Limo Angie Gates Principal and Executive Vice President, Managing Principal, Steven Boyle Director, OCTFME Hoffman & Associates Roadside Development Managing Director, Stan Jackson Annie Senatore Omar McIntosh / Vice Chair EDENS President & CEO, AEDC CEO and Lead Event Designer, Senior Vice President, Jean-Luc Brami Norman Jemal Design Foundry Smoot Construction Vice President, Gelberg Signs Vice President, Olivia Shay-Byrne Douglas Development Partner, K&L Gates
    [Show full text]
  • Boston Properties
    Boston New York Washington, DC San Francisco Princeton Boston Properties 2009 Annual Report On the Cover General Motors Building 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY Contents IFC Company Description 1 In Memoriam 2 Letter to Shareholders 5 Our Philosophy and Proven Strategy 7 Sustainability and Green Innovation 8 Board of Directors and Officers 9 Form 10-K IBC Corporate Information Boston Properties, Inc., a self- The Company acquires, develops and administered and self-managed real manages its properties through full- estate investment trust (REIT), is one service regional offices. Its property of the largest owners, managers and portfolio is comprised primarily of first- developers of first-class office properties class office space and also includes in the United States, with a significant one hotel, two residential properties presence in five markets: Boston, and three retail properties. Boston Washington, DC, Midtown Manhattan, Properties is well-known for its in-house San Francisco, and Princeton, NJ. building management expertise and The Company was founded in 1970 by responsiveness to tenants’ needs. The Mortimer B. Zuckerman and Edward Company holds a superior track record H. Linde in Boston, where it maintains in developing premium Central Business its headquarters. Boston Properties District (CBD) office buildings, suburban became a public company in June 1997 office centers and build-to-suit projects and is traded on the New York Stock for the U.S. government and a diverse Exchange under the symbol “BXP.” array of creditworthy tenants. This Annual Report contains “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the federal securities laws. See the discussion under “Forward-Looking Statements” in the Form 10-K for matters to be considered in this regard.
    [Show full text]
  • Thesis Draft Final 03
    Cross-Border Expansion Strategy of U.S. Real Estate Development Firms: Entry and Operation Models in Brazil by Dan (Dong Woo) Kang B.Arch, 2009 Carnegie Mellon University Submitted to the Program in Real Estate Development in Conjunction with the Center for Real Estate in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Real Estate Development at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology September, 2013 ©2013 Dan (Dong Woo) Kang All rights reserved The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly paper and electronic copies of this thesis document in whole or in part in any medium now known or hereafter created. Signature of Author_____________________________________________________________________ Center for Real Estate July 30, 2013 Certified by___________________________________________________________________________ Dennis Frenchman Leventhal Professor of Urban Design and Planning, Department of Urban Studies & Planning & MIT Center for Real Estate Thesis Supervisor Accepted by__________________________________________________________________________ David Geltner Chair, MSRED Committee, Interdepartmental Degree Program in Real Estate Development Cross-Border Expansion Strategy of U.S. Real Estate Development Firms: Entry and Operation Models in Brazil by Dan (Dong Woo) Kang Submitted to the Program in Real Estate Development in Conjunction with the Center for Real Estate on July 30, 2013 in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Real Estate Development ABSTRACT Over the past several decades, technological advances, the spread of free-market ideology and the shifting of the economic center of the world have resulted in an incredible transformation of the world into a globalized, interdependent place. The term “globalization” has become an essential keyword associated with business in the modern world, creating great opportunities for U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Boston Properties, Inc
    BOSTON PROPERTIES 2002 ANNUAL REPORT 00 On the cover (clockwise from upper left): Prudential Center, Boston, MA Citigroup Center, New York,NY Freedom Square, Reston,VA Embarcadero Center, San Francisco, CA Facing page: 5 Times Square, New York,NY Contents 1 Company Description 2 Letter to Shareholders 10 Property Portfolio 12 Directors and Officers 13 Form 10-K BACK COVER Corporate Information This Annual Report contains “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the federal securities laws. See the discussion under “Forward-Looking Statements” in this report for matters to be considered in this regard. BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC., a self-administered and self-managed real estate investment trust (REIT), is one of the largest owners, managers and developers of first-class office properties in the United States, with a significant presence in four core markets: Boston, Washington, D.C., Midtown Manhattan and San Francisco. Boston Properties was founded in 1970 in Boston, where it maintains its headquarters. The Company acquires, develops and manages its properties through full-service regional offices in Boston, New York City,Washington, D.C., San Francisco and Princeton, New Jersey. Its property portfolio primarily comprises first-class office space and also includes hotels and industrial buildings. Boston Properties is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol BXP. 1 00 MORTIMER B. ZUCKERMAN Chairman of the Board (left) EDWARD H. LINDE President and Chief Executive Officer TO OUR SHAREHOLDERS: over 2001, and FFO per share of $4.09 was up 14.6% year-to-year. We are pleased to report that even in the face of continued ● Year-end occupancy at 94.1% in our total office portfolio, weakness in the national economy and in office markets reflecting a vacancy rate less than half the average in the Class throughout the country,and specifically in the regions in which A office markets in which we operate and one-third of the we operate, Boston Properties has had another year of very national average.
    [Show full text]