Good day, and thank you for standing by. Welcome to Q1 2025 BXP Earnings Conference Call. At this time, all participants are on a listen-only mode. After the speaker's presentation, there will be a question-and-answer session. To ask a question during the session, you will need to press star 11 on your telephone. You will then hear an automated message advising your hand is raised. To withdraw your question, please press star 11 again. Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. I would now like to hand the conference over to your first speaker, Helen Han, Vice President, Investor Relations. Please go ahead. Good morning, and welcome to BXP's first quarter 2025 earnings conference call. The press release and supplemental package were distributed last night and furnished on Form 8-K. In the supplemental package, BXP has reconciled all non-GAAP financial measures to the most directly comparable GAAP measure in accordance with Reg G. If you did not receive a copy, these documents are available in the investors' section of our website at investors.bxp.com. A webcast of this call will be available for 12 months. At this time, we would like to inform you that certain statements made during this conference call, which are not historical, may constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. Although BXP believes the expectations reflected in any forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions, it can give no assurance that its expectations will be attained. Factors and risks that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by forward-looking statements were detailed in yesterday's press release and from time to time in BXP's filings with the SEC. BXP does not undertake a duty to update any forward-looking statements. I'd like to welcome Owen Thomas, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer; Doug Linde, President; and Mike LaBelle, Chief Financial Officer. During the Q&A portion of our call, our regional management teams will be available to address any questions. We ask that those of you participating in the Q&A portion of the call to please limit yourself to one and only one question. If you have an additional query or follow-up, please feel free to rejoin the queue. I'd now like to turn the call over to Owen Thomas for his formal remarks. Thank you, Helen, and good morning to all of you. Our results in the first quarter demonstrated BXP's continued strong performance given our execution and the sustained property and capital market recovery. Our FFO per share for the quarter was in line with our forecast. We completed over 1.1 million sq ft of leasing in the quarter, which was 25% above the leasing volume we achieved in the first quarter of 2024. Further, over the last four quarters, our leasing volume of 5.9 million sq ft was 33% higher than the prior four quarters. Importantly, we made progress leasing up our development pipeline assets and completed several significant leases with important clients such as Goodwin Procter, Cooley, and a defense technology company. We completed over $4.2 billion of financing activity, demonstrating improving market conditions and BXP's strong access to capital. We released our 2024 Sustainability and Impact Report, highlighting BXP's leadership and accomplishments in sustainable business practices important to the capital providers, clients, and communities we serve. Now, starting with the operating environment, the obvious question is, what impacts will tariffs and other federal policies have on BXP's business? So far, the tariff program has increased volatility in the capital markets, created concerns over the potential for higher prices, inflation, and interest rates, and reduced consumer confidence, leading to more economists forecasting a recession or slower U.S. GDP growth. For BXP, the primary drivers of leasing activity are corporate confidence and in-person work behavior. Our primary concern has been that our clients may delay or terminate space requirements due to the more uncertain operating environment. This has not happened. Specifically, for the million sq ft of deals where we have a signed LOI and are negotiating a lease, to date, only a single 8,000 sq ft prospective user declined to move forward due to market conditions. Doug will describe our current pipeline of leasing activity, which remains robust. Federal funding cuts to the NIH and other research organizations, as well as uncertainties over FDA approvals, are causing significant concerns for the life science community and creating additional headwinds for life science leasing. If the U.S. were to enter a recession, leasing demand would undoubtedly slow, but interest rates would likely be lower and remote work would likely decrease due to a weaker labor market. Tariffs will drive up material prices, increasing construction costs. Given non-U.S. Material procurement is a modest component of our construction budgets and contractors are eager for new business, we do not see tariffs having a major impact on our construction estimates, and Doug will provide a real-time example of this. As mentioned last quarter, we think DOGE has a positive impact on BXP's Washington, D.C. business as federal workers and their contractors who are our clients return to the office. We are already seeing increased foot traffic, retail activity, and parking revenue at Reston Town Center as a result of DOGE. Moving to office market conditions, I will continue to emphasize that the premier workplace segment where BXP primarily competes continues to materially outperform the broader office market. Premier workplaces, as defined in CBRE's research, continue to be the highest quality 7% of buildings, representing 13% of total space in our five CBD markets. Direct vacancy for premier workplaces is just over 13% versus 19% for the broader market. Likewise, net absorption for premier workplaces has been a positive 18 million sq ft over the last three years versus a negative 30 million sq ft for the broader market. Asking rents for premier workplaces continue to be more than 50% higher than the broader market. Regarding the real estate private equity capital markets, office sales volume in the first quarter was $7.6 billion, down approximately 14% from the first quarter of last year. Though financing remains available and transactions continue to close, the current market volatility has widened credit spreads in both the CMBS and REIT investment-grade unsecured markets, which should have some impact on pricing. Though several premier workplace transactions are underway in the U.S., there were few new commitments of note. Moving to BXP's capital allocation activities and new investments, we commenced the development of 290 Coles, a 670-unit 100% market rate multifamily development project in the SoHo West submarket of downtown Jersey City. Jersey City's multifamily market is highly attractive due to its easy access to Manhattan and a less expensive housing option, resulting in robust population growth, strong demand for apartments, and resultant rent growth despite new development activity. Our partners in the project are Albanese Organization as co-developer and Cross Harbor Capital Partners as financial partner. A key attraction of the investment for us is the capital structure, where BXP will be providing $20 million in common equity for a 19.5% interest in the project and $65 million of preferred equity with a 13% preferred return. At project stabilization, the $225 million senior loan and BXP's accrued preferred equity investment will represent under 65% of the total $456 million cost of the project, and the unleveraged cash development yield on cost is projected to be more than 6%. Including development fees and carried interest earned, we project the common and preferred equity investments together will deliver total returns in the mid-teens. Construction has commenced. Delivery of the initial units is scheduled for the first half of 2028, and asset stabilization is forecast for the second half of 2029. Continuing with new development, I have described our 930,000 sq ft 343 Madison project in Midtown with direct lobby access to the Grand Central Madison concourse and located two blocks south of J.P. Morgan's new headquarters building. The Midtown office market is strong and experiencing rent growth with a vacancy rate under 7% for the higher quality buildings. 2022, 2023, and 2024 were all record years in New York City for leases signed in excess of both $100 a sq ft and $200 a sq ft. 343 Madison is the only immediately actionable office development site in close proximity to Grand Central Terminal. We have made lease proposals to seven anchor clients, primarily financial service firms, with an average requirement of 350,000 sq ft. There are another 10 clients with requirements aggregating over 3.2 million sq ft who have received presentations and are considering the building. We expect to launch this $2 billion project in 2025, where, as a reminder, BXP owns a 55% interest. We are in various stages of negotiation for the sale of eight land sites that will generate, if successful, net proceeds of approximately $250 million over the next 24 months. Several of these sales require reentitlement, creating a more extended closing period. We continue to evaluate additional asset monetization opportunities. In conclusion, BXP is a domestic business with long-term leases and a stable dividend that will not be as heavily impacted as other industries by volatility in global trade. Further, new construction for office has dropped precipitously, and users are gravitating to higher quality assets, the combination creating rent growth in several of our submarkets. BXP is maintaining momentum in both leasing and new investment activity despite this more challenging market environment. With our current leasing momentum and only 3.9% portfolio lease rollover in 2026 and 5.1% in 2027, we expect to gain occupancy, revenue, and FFO in the years ahead. Development deliveries and potentially acquisitions will add additional growth. I'll turn over the report to Doug. Good morning, everybody. It's a beautiful spring day here in Boston, and we have a pretty optimistic report that we're going to give you. Owen's described our views of the business environment and the current challenges that are associated with the constant dynamic changes in trade relationships and government efficiency. My comments this morning will address what we're seeing in our results and our client interactions. Our client purchase cycle may be a lagging indicator, but based on the first quarter leasing results, both in our current pipeline of transactions under negotiation and our funnel of possible additional activity, we've seen very little impact on our 2025 plan, which calls for about 4 million sq ft of leasing, but more importantly, including about 3 million sq ft of leasing on vacant space and known 2025 expirations, which is where our focus is, our leased square footage. During the first quarter, we executed just over 1.1 million sq ft, which is almost 35% more than our seasonal Q1 average over the last five years. More importantly, the activity included 467,000 sq ft of leases on vacant space and 561,000 sq ft of 2025 known expirations. This 1 million sq ft of leasing activity on our near-term exposure, vacant space, and 2025 expirations will drive improvements to our occupancy over the next 12 to 18 months. Post-4/1/2025, our current pool of leases in negotiation is 1.1 million sq ft. It covers an additional 435,000 sq ft of currently vacant space, 230,000 sq ft of 2025 expirations, 190,000 sq ft of 2026 and 2027 expirations, which will lower our future exposure, as well as our second lease at 725 12th Street. We have another 1.7 million sq ft of active pipeline transactions, which could cover an additional 1 million sq ft of vacant space or 25 expirations. This would put us on our target for our full year 2025 vacant and 2025 expiring lease guidance of about 3 million sq ft. One of the inferences from Owen's comments would seem to be enhanced caution from clients as they navigate uncertainty. We would be naive to think we will not see some impact, but speaking to you today, it has yet to be material. Let me give you a few examples of current client behavior. An existing Boston client with a recent return-to-work mandate believes it needs additional seats, but it is being measured in its approach and waiting until there is clarity of use before they commit to more space. In our Reston Virginia portfolio, where we have an embedded base of defense and security clients, where DOGE probably we would think had the most impact, we are seeing renewals and incremental additional space needs, not downsizing and canceled requirements. This is a government contractor in the market that wants to relocate a 50,000-60,000 sq ft block of space to the town center, and at the moment, we're unable to accommodate them. In Manhattan, we have one existing 11,000 sq ft client put its expansion plans on hold, saying, "We want to watch how the financial markets evolve." In the same building, another 11,000 sq ft client in the same industry is negotiating for an 11,000 sq ft expansion. In the aggregate, these conversations are consistent with what we were hearing in January, 90 days ago. As we discussed in January, an expiration of 350,000 sq ft at 200 Fifth Avenue, coupled with about 150,000 sq ft of expirations in San Francisco's CBD, came into reduction to 86.9%, a 60 basis point decrease from last quarter. However, we executed a lease for 244,000 sq ft of that now vacant space at 200 Fifth and expect occupancy in late 2026, and our pipeline of deal discussions covers more than 125,000 sq ft of our San Francisco CBD vacancy. We're staying pretty level. The leased in-service portfolio stayed flat quarter to quarter at 89.4%. Our leased, but not yet commenced square footage has grown to 250 basis points or over 1.2 million sq ft over our occupied square footage. We expect about 800,000 sq ft to commence in 2025, with almost all the rest in 2026. We have a large pickup in our development leasing this quarter. Notice page 15 of our supplemental, where we signed up another floor at 360 Park Avenue South, our second lease at 725 12th, signed during the second quarter, and we completed a 162,000 sq ft lease at 1050 Winter Street, resulting in a jump from 50% to 62% pre-leased on our development pipeline. 1050 Winter Street was out of service, and we had previously terminated all of the leases in order to reposition it as a life science building. Long story short, a defense technology company that is currently occupying 40,000 sq ft in the market approached us to lease the entire building for 15 years, and we made the decision to pivot back to office. The building is 100% pre-leased and will be brought into service in Q3 2025. Office market conditions are consistent with our remarks last quarter, with a possible exception that conditions are even tighter in our Midtown New York portfolio, the Back Bay of Boston, and Reston Virginia. What this means is that availability is sparse, rents are increasing, and concessions remain constant. We completed 91,000 individual transactions this quarter, 300,000 in Boston, 420,000 in New York, 350,000 on the West Coast, and 80,000 sq ft in Reston. The overall mark-to-market on cash basis was up about 5%, with an increase in Boston, flat in New York, and decreases on the West Coast and in Reston. Other than the new lease at 200 Fifth and at 1050 Winter, no other transaction exceeded 40,000 sq ft. Our highlights in Boston this quarter were in the Urban Edge, where we did the 15-year lease at 1050 Winter and a 39,000 sq ft lease at 180 City Point. Last quarter, I remarked that we were touring life science clients that had no lab infrastructure needs. The first of these transactions was executed in the first quarter at 180 City Point. In addition, we are in lease negotiations with a second client for another 40,000 sq ft at 180 City Point. These life science companies are looking exclusively for office space as they focus their capital on acquiring DRIF products that are in trials rather than pure drug discovery and therefore do not need lab infrastructure. The economics of doing an office transaction on raw space, even though the building was purpose-built lab infrastructure in it, are far superior to a lab transaction given the elevated tenant improvements necessary to compete in the markets. These facts hold in South San Francisco as well as Greater Boston. In Manhattan, in addition to the new client at 200 Fifth, we were able to do three separate 25,000 sq ft client expansions at the General Motors building, 599 Lexington Avenue, and 250 West 55th Street. Our most significant Midtown availability today is at 510 Madison, and we are in lease negotiations on four full floors. Taking rents in our Midtown properties are up double digits relative to a year ago, and concessions are flat to slightly lower. Our availability in Manhattan is concentrated at 360 Park Avenue South. Demand is picking up, and there has been some improvement in small tech tenant inquiry. The most significant change in San Francisco over the last quarter has been the completion of some of the large transactions that were in the works. The total volume of leases in the market has settled at a lower level as there are fewer active large requirements, but there are lots of potential clients under 50,000 sq ft working in the market today. Many of the traditional office users have continued to rationalize their space, which has led to little, if any, growth in the San Francisco CBD traditional demand. Increasing incremental leasing is all about tenant relocations. We had one law firm move out at Embarcadero Center at the end of 2024, and two others renew, but they contracted on a total of five floors or 125,000 sq ft. Each of the two renewals had one floor of give back. We've leased one 20,000 sq ft floor and are in lease discussions for another 125,000 sq ft of vacant space. View space is in short supply, but space in the lower sections of buildings is available and competitive. Our new amenity center, The Mosaic, is a strong draw for new clients considering Embarcadero Center. 2024 was a terrific absorption year for the AI companies with more than 1 million sq ft of positive absorption. We need to see this trend continue. AI is getting a disproportionate share of all venture investing, and more than 65% of it is going to San Francisco-based companies. The future bodes well. Before I conclude my remarks, I want to discuss tariffs as they relate to construction activities. We are currently bidding a multifamily project in Jersey City, 290 Coles. To date, about 60% of the job has been bid and awarded, and we are inside of our hard cost estimates by a few percentage points. We've had one trade where the award bid necessitated a tariff upcharge. The contract, including the tariff cost, was still below our budgeted estimate for the subcontract, but it's going to add somewhere between 1.5%-4% to that particular trade. Given the overall slowdown in new construction, there seems to be enough subcontractor interest to offset potential tariff increases. Remember that construction is a composition of labor, materials, and profit. While this is certainly a positive outcome for 290 Coles, it's too early to predict how U.S. tariff policy will impact our future development activity. With that, I'll turn the call over to Mike. Great. Thanks, Doug. Appreciate it. Good morning, everybody. Today, I plan to cover our activity in the debt capital markets, which Owen described briefly as very significant, which it was, our first quarter earnings results, and an update to our full year 2025 earnings guidance. As you know, the debt markets have experienced significant volatility over the past month. Credit spreads have widened in the unsecured and secured bond markets, especially for lower-rated credits. Spreads for stronger companies like us are now tightening again, but are still wider than earlier in the year. Our 10-year bond spreads have increased by about 30 basis points, and we could issue in the 10-year unsecured bond market at about 180 basis points spread today, or a fixed rate right around 6%. The Treasury market has also experienced large swings ranging almost 100 basis points this year. Issuers need to pick their spots in this market, but also can take advantage of the volatility when the market dislocates. We were opportunistic a few weeks ago in the middle of a day with dramatic swings in Fed rate cut expectations. We swapped $300 million of floating rate debt for a year at a fixed SOFR rate of 3.68% and locked in some savings. We continue to have open access to all the markets, and we're busy in the bank market, CMBS, and the commercial paper market this quarter. In the bank market, we increased and extended our corporate facilities, including increasing the borrowing capacity and our revolving line of credit by $250 million to $2.25 billion and extending it for five years. We also extended our $700 million term loan for four years, plus one year of extension options. We closed the $225 million construction loan priced at SOFR plus 250 basis points in the bank market for our new 290 Coles Street joint venture residential development in Jersey City. In the CMBS market, we closed the $252 million 10-year fixed-rate refinancing of our loan on the Marriott headquarters building that we developed. It priced at a fixed rate of 5.5%, representing a credit spread of 124 basis points over the 4.26% 10-year Treasury rate at the time of closing. We closed this loan prior to the recent disruption in the markets, and the spread would likely be wider today. We remain an active commercial paper issuer and have increased our outstandings to $750 million. The CP market is our cheapest source of debt capital. Spreads have been moving around a little in the last 30 days, though in a relatively reasonable 10-15 basis point range for us. Our portfolio is currently priced at a weighted average yield of 4.72%. Turning to our first quarter results, our earnings came right in line with the midpoint of our guidance range, and we reported FFO of $1.64 per share. As we look at the rest of 2025, here are a few items to consider. First, and as we discussed last quarter, we have two larger expirations in the second quarter aggregating 465,000 sq ft in our Urban Edge portfolio in Boston. We expect our occupancy to decline slightly in Q2 before starting to increase in the back half of 2025 as our signed leases and our 2025 leasing plans start to take occupancy. Second, in our strongest markets of Midtown Manhattan and the Back Bay of Boston, we're creating transactions to increase future revenue where we currently don't have available space. As a result, we're taking back space early to complete long-term leases with expanding or incoming clients. This quarter, we terminated two floors at 599 Lexington for this purpose, and we're working on a floor at both the Prudential Tower and at 200 Clarendon Street. These deals pull forward downtime into 2025 in favor of starting new leases with higher rents in 2026. The new leases will be reflected in our leased percentage, but not in occupancy in 2025. We have taken a 360,000 sq ft building in the Urban Edge of Boston out of service this quarter. We are relocating several clients into the other buildings in our portfolio. The building is extremely well located, and we're evaluating multiple feasible future redevelopment plans. The impact is a shift in the NOI of this asset from our same property pool to our out-of-service portfolio. Also, as Doug mentioned, we signed a 160,000 sq ft lease at 1050 Winter Street. We're completing a repositioning of the building and added it to our development pipeline with full occupancy projected in the third quarter of 2025. This deal, combined with leases signed at 180 City Point and 360 Park Avenue South, as well as faster-than-expected lease-up at our Skymark Residential Development in Reston, has resulted in our increasing our assumption for the contribution from our developments placed in service. Overall, we are narrowing our 2025 FFO guidance range and maintaining our midpoint with a new range of $6.80-$6.92 per share. The changes in our guidance assumptions include an increase in the contribution of our same property portfolio of 2 cents, an increase in the contribution from developments placed in service of 1 cent, offset by a reduction of 2 cents in NOI from our buildings out of service, and minor changes to our net interest expense of 1 cent. Leasing remains our biggest focus, and we're delighted by another strong quarter of more than 1.1 million sq ft of leasing in the portfolio. Our pipeline continues to build with 2.8 million sq ft of signed letters of intent and active proposals, which represents an increase of 15% since our last call last quarter. These 2.8 million sq ft, along with over 1.2 million sq ft of signed leases that have not yet hit our revenue and occupancy, totals 4 million sq ft, and it compares favorably to the 3.8 million sq ft of lease expirations we have through the end of 2026. This is what gives us confidence that we can grow our occupancy as we look ahead into 2026 and 2027. That completes our formal remarks. Operator, can you open the lines up for questions? Thank you, sir. As a reminder to ask a question, you will need to press star 11 on your telephone. To withdraw your question, please press star 11 again. We ask that you please limit your questions to no more than one, but feel free to go back into the queue, and if time permits, we'll be happy to take your follow-up question at that time. Please stand by while we compile the Q&A roster. I share our first question comes from the line of Steve Sakwa from Evercore ISI. Please go ahead. Yeah, thanks. Good morning. I guess, Owen or Doug, as it relates to 343 Madison, I mean, the commentary around the demand is quite good. I realize the building doesn't maybe lend itself to pre-leasing given the size of tenants, but how are you sort of sizing up the start, no start, pre-lease? Is this just a building where you kind of have to make the commitment to go forward, get it under construction before you can really get any leasing? What kind of yield are you targeting on this building should you go forward? Steve, our goal is to get it pre-leased. It is a 950,000 sq ft building. The pre-lease will not be a likely asked property. It will be in the 150,000-250,000 sq ft range would be my guess. That is our first priority. We do have a decision point in July with respect to going forward with the project. Given that demand profile that I described in our remarks, we have a lot of confidence in this property. We do not have to make that decision until July, but that is when we will have to make it. Our forecast yield or what we are trying to get on the property is 8%, which we think is appropriate given the higher interest rate environment that we are operating in. Hillary, you just might want to comment. You have been part of every one of these presentations we have done. I think there is a significant amount of interest for organizations of 150-300,000 sq ft that actually would consider and are considering doing a pre-commitment to this building. Yeah, that's right. We've had numerous conversations and multiple rounds of those conversations with some tenants about committing to the building, which at 150,000 sq ft is a little bit unusual. Usually, those tenants are not looking four years out for their space, but it remains the case that very high-quality space at scale in the Park Avenue and Plaza District submarkets is vanishingly rare. Those companies are willing to sort of look ahead of time and stretch in terms of figuring out how to get into 343. There has been a lot of interest from folks who are willing to commit on a pre-lease basis. Thank you. I share our next question comes from the line of John Kim from BMO Capital Markets. Please go ahead. Good morning. Doug, you mentioned in your prepared remarks that the plan this year is for 4 million sq ft of leasing, including 3 million sq ft on vacant space and 25 expirations. I just wanted to ask how confident you were on this plan. When you look at the expirations this year, you have about 1.9 million sq ft expiring. Can we deduct that you're planning to grow occupancy by about 1 million sq ft this year? I'm not sure how developments and first quarter activity factors into this. Yeah, sure. Thanks for the question, John. As of today, we've done about 1 million sq ft of leasing on vacant and 25 expirations. In my sort of pipeline of what's under negotiation today, like leases that are being actually documented, there's another 400,000 sq ft of "vacant space" and 250,000 sq ft of 25 expirations. Net, we're actually more than halfway there. Again, my pipeline of other activity has another 1 million sq ft of that type of space. I feel really good about our leased square footage percentage. I say this with all due respect. It's really hard for us to correlate lease with occupancy on a quarter-by-quarter basis because we just don't know when that revenue is going to commence. If you're looking at our leased square footage, which is what I'm trying to point people to, and that number is continuing to expand, that is going to be where the revenue comes from. As I said, the vast majority of what we're doing today is going to be in 2025 or 2026. I am very confident of our occupancy build as we move into 2026 because all the things we're doing now will be in service by then. It's very hard for me to say on December 31, 2025, our occupancy is going to be X percent because I just don't know what the revenue recognition is going to require from us. Thank you. I share our next question comes from the line of Nick Yulico from Scotiabank. Please go ahead. Thanks. I guess maybe just following up on the point on how to think about occupancy and earnings impact through the year. Can you maybe just frame out it? I know, Mike, you gave the expiration that's known in the second quarter, but as we're thinking about all this pipeline of activity that's either gotten done or you feel like is going to get done, and the impact for 2025 on NOI, occupancy, FFO, how should we think about the earnings guidance range right now about what still needs to get accomplished to get to certain points on the range for, let's say, occupancy and FFO? Thanks. Look, we narrowed our range primarily because of the success that we had in our leasing and the timing of some of those occupancy starts that we now know about. The bottom end of the range was lower. We have got a lot of leasing done, so we have a lot more confidence that the bottom end is better. We brought up the bottom end of our same-store guidance as well, which kind of correlates to that. Some of the top end of the range was related to lease starts that we might have for leasing that we have done that may start now in 2026 or could have started in 2025, but we are doing deals on deals where we say the revenue recognition for these deals will probably be in 2026 or 2025. We are pulling back a little bit on the top end of our range primarily for that reason. We feel highly confident in the range that we have and the same-store guidance we provide based upon the activity that we have and we've seen. I'll just give you a bottle of example of why the variability is so meaningful. 200 Avenue, we've done this for 244,000 sq ft, which is fabulous and great, and it's going to start in 2026, right? It's not going to be in occupancy until 2025. On the other hand, we have another 100,000 sq ft of availability in that building. We're talking to two tenants right now. One of those tenants would take the space immediately. The other tenant will probably not take the space until 2026. If on average the rent there is $100 a sq ft on 100,000 sq ft, right, that's a meaningful amount of dollars that is going to shift one way or the other, and therefore is why we have the range where we have it. Unfortunately, we just do not know until these leases are signed and we actually see what the condition requirements are of how we are delivering the space, which way we are going to go. It is that sort of subtlety that sort of is why I am so fixated on our lease sq ft and not necessarily our quarter-to-quarter occupancy. The other transaction that I described in my notes, and maybe I'll try to describe a little better, is these four floors that we have in 599 in the Back Bay, where we have leases in place, right, that are expiring either at the very end of 2025 or early in 2026. We know those tenants are going, right? We are marketing that space now, and we have live clients that need to expand or want to come into the building, and they want to be in in 2026. In order to get them in in 2026, we have to do something with the existing tenant that wants to leave in 2025. That is a good thing for our occupancy going forward and our revenue going forward. We are taking some chips off the table in 2025. Again, all of that is built into Mike's guidance, right? Hold on there. Thank you. I share our next question comes from the line of Ronald Kamden from Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead. Hey, just a quick one. We've been having a little bit of trouble hearing. Maybe it's just us, but I guess I'd love to focus on one, just trends on the ground in the life science market. I think you talked a little bit in your opening comments about that space, but you guys always have a pretty good perspective. Just what are you seeing, and what do you think it will take for that to turn around? If I could ask a little bit of a follow-up just on the Boston market overall, we've seen job growth start to slow there. Just what are your thoughts there? Thanks so much. Let me answer the question on life science first. I would say that we have seen very little in the way of new requirements for raw life science space in either South San Francisco or in the greater Boston, Waltham, Lexington market, which is where we have our space. We are seeing, as I described earlier, life science organizations that want office space looking at our portfolio in greater Waltham in a meaningful amount. I would not be surprised if we have leased well over 100,000 sq ft of life science client demand, but not lab space in our Waltham marketplace in 2025. I think things are actually slightly more extensive and more robust, and I use that word subtly because it means a pickup in demand in a meaningful way in the greater Boston market than it is in the South San Francisco marketplace. The issues associated with all of the "changes to the health and human services world" and how that's impacting potentially how new therapeutics are going to be regulated by the FDA, I think it's just creating a lot of. Ladies and gentlemen, please continue to hold. Your conference call will resume momentarily. Please continue to hold. Your conference call will resume momentarily. Okay, we're back, I think. Can you hear us? Yes. I can loud and clear. You may proceed. Your question on Boston is relative to just overall "demand growth" and job growth. I'll let Bryan handle that one. Yeah, I think the key for Boston right now, especially in our urban edge portfolio, is momentum that Doug and Owen both brought up. I can't say this is a huge trend yet, but what we are seeing in a couple of deals that we were able to land in this first quarter, they were transactions that were heading some other place but needed capital, which the building wasn't able to supply. We're seeing more of that because of capital stack issues and a lot of the existing product out there. Also, flexibility that Doug mentioned on that one defense contractor transaction where we were able to pivot from life science development that we had for that building laid out to the office use and specialized use for this defense contractor. Flexibility and capital are really starting to be something that's getting noticed by the tenant rep community in a bigger way. We'll see how big of a trend that is, but it's certainly helping us to get deals transacted. Thank you. I share our next question comes from the line of Anthony Paolone from J.P. Morgan. Please go ahead. Thank you. Can you talk about your West Coast leasing activity and what you're seeing there as it relates to strengths and weaknesses by either tenant type or submarket and anything that's changed in the last couple of months? Yes. I'll make a brief comment, and then I'll turn it over to Rod. My view is that, as I said earlier, the large users have all sort of landed, and there's a significant amount of embedded tenants in the market, but they're all of a smaller nature. For the most part, the financial services, legal, professional services are incrementally either staying in place or seeing a modest amount of space reduction still. There are quite a few what I would refer to as early stage and smaller AI and other technology companies that are in the market looking for space. Rod? Yeah, I think that's right, Doug. Mostly what we're busy with right now with the leasing, particularly at Embarcadero Center, has been with a lot of the law firms and other financial firms that are in the market. These are relocations generally. That is very active, though. There have been a lot of them, and it's contributing to the volume that you've seen coming out of the West Coast. On the AI front, it's still meaningful. I think it's important to note that the footprint of AI companies in San Francisco now is over 5 million sq ft. There are a lot of companies that are out poking around. Names we haven't heard of or have not heard of in the past are showing up and taking space. It's encouraging. I think that we're going to continue to see that. We are seeing, I'd say, a little bit less of that down in Silicon Valley. It's been a little bit slower down there, but there's still, I think, a few more larger requirements that have hit our radar in the last month or so, which is good. Thank you. I share our next question comes from the line of Blaine Heck from Wells Fargo. Please go ahead. Great. Thanks. Good morning. Can you talk about leverage and funding a little bit more? Debt to EBITDA ticked up to 8.3 times on your numbers this quarter, which is higher than you've run it historically. I guess, how are you thinking about your comfort there given the additional projects you're taking on? Any thoughts on near-term moves to bring that down, or should we just expect you to kind of wait in anticipation of natural downward movement in that metric as developments come online and with potential occupancy upside? The first quarter leverage went up a little bit, and it was kind of exacerbated by the seasonality of the first quarter. Our G&A is much higher in the first quarter than it is for the rest of the year. That was a big reason because the EBITDA for the first quarter is just lower. Then you annualize it, and it makes a big difference. If you kind of normalize for that, it was more like 7.9. It still did go up from 7.65 to 7.9. I would expect that it is going to continue over the next several quarters to move up as we fund the development pipeline. When 290 Coles delivers in the second quarter or third quarter of next year, mid-next year, we are going to get a lot of income coming in. We also have leasing continuing on the other parts of our development pipeline that will bring income in. I would say it would be moderating after that. From a funding perspective, we continue to use incremental debt today, which is why you're seeing the leverage move up a little bit. We continue to view that once our pipeline delivers, our leverage will go down from here. As Owen described, we're looking at monetizing non-income-producing real estate. Owen mentioned $250 million of land transactions we're working on where we could execute and sell those assets over the next couple of years. We're going to continue to look at opportunities like that to assist us with funding. We'll also look at private equity sources if we need to. Depending on where our stock price goes, public equity sources, it just depends where that is, as well as incremental debt in order to fund additional investments that we may have. Yeah, I just would make one last comment, which is that 290 Benny Street from a cash perspective is going to be online in less than a year. We may not be recognizing revenue, but the cash is going to be there. Effectively, on a true basis, our EBITDA is going to start coming down in a meaningful way when that happens. I believe that's late April of 2026. Even though "occupancy" may not occur from a revenue recognition perspective, the cash is going to be there. Thank you. I share our next question comes from the line of Jana Galan from Bank of America Securities. Please go ahead. Thank you. Good morning. Just wanted to congratulate you on the refinancings and financings completed in one Q and the market timing. I guess, given the capital markets volatility in the last month, can you comment where you think BXP can issue unsecured debt secured and what CMBS pricing would look like today? Look, as I mentioned in my call, the bond market for us, it widened, and now it's coming back. Things are kind of settling down a little bit in the bond market over the last week or two, I would say. Our bond spreads kind of in early April, they moved out 50 basis points, and now they're out 30 basis points. They're settling in. I think for stronger credits, the spread widening is less. When you get out into high yield, the spread widening is significantly wider. That's in the unsecured bond market. I think the same thing is in the CMBS market. High-quality, lower leveraged deal can get done, and higher leveraged stuff is going to be tough. AAAs on CMBS widened pretty dramatically. They had gotten to 100 basis points or less. They went out to 250 basis points, and now they're back below 200 basis points. There's just been a lot of volatility. I think people have to think about timing and be prepared in advance to strike when that market is good. I mentioned the commercial paper market, which is also a live market that we're in every day. There's been a little bit of widening there, but it's kind of settled down. I would say things are improving right now. We could issue 10-year unsecured debt at 6%. The CMBS market is really dependent on, I'd say it's more asset-specific. I think if you have a 50% leveraged high-quality loan with good weighted average lease term, you could probably get it done in the low to mid-two's over probably the five-year. I would say 10-year is harder to come by. Thank you. I share our next question comes from the line of Seth Bergey from Citigroup. Please go ahead. Hi, good morning. Thanks for taking my question. I just wanted to ask a quick question about your in-service portfolio occupancy guidance. It looks like Reservoir Place and Reston Center were kind of taken out, and 651 Gateway was not added this quarter. What are the puts and takes there, and are there any changes that we should be thinking about there as it relates to the NOI run rate going forward? We talked about Reston Corporate Center last quarter. That's a building that was 100% leased at the end of the year. The tenant vacated. We knew they were going to vacate. It's the location for us to build the next phase of Reston Town Center, which is 3 million sq ft of density. That's been in the works for years. We actually have the density approved, and we'll be working over the next few years trying to make some of that development a reality. Reservoir Place was the asset I mentioned in my remarks, which was a building in the urban edge of Boston. It's an older office building, incredibly well located, great visibility. We think there's likely a better utilization for that real estate potentially. We elected to start to move some of the clients that were in there into other buildings in our portfolio. Some went to the CBD, some went to other urban edge assets. We just elected to take it out of service. That was a 360,000 sq ft building. It had, I think, 220,000 sq ft of vacancy at the end of the quarter. As I said, we're relocating tenants out of it. There are a couple of other buildings that we are considering pulling out of service, also suburban buildings that total somewhere between 250,000-300,000 sq ft that are vacant today, and we could take out of service. The development pipeline, which is coming into service, includes 651 Gateway, 360 Park Avenue South, and Reston Next Block D. All of those will get added, we believe, sometime in 2025. Although at 651 Gateway, we're kind of taking the lead from our partner and when they deliver that. If all of those deliver and there's no additional occupancy, that would add somewhere between 50 and 70 basis points to the vacancy on the headline. Thank you. I share our next question comes from the line of Alexander Goldfarb from Piper Sandler. Please go ahead. Hey, good morning. Mike or Doug, just going back to the discussion on the uncertainty over when tenants take occupancy on the initial Outlook call back in, I guess it was January, early February, the discussion was of a steep FFO ramp in the back half of this year based on how the occupancy trends were going and tenants taking space. Do you still feel comfortable that we'll see this ramp up in the back half of the year, or because of what you were talking about as far as uncertainty over when tenants may take space, that ramp up may actually be pushed to 2026 versus us seeing it in the back half of this year? I mean, Alex, I think it'll be both, right? If you look at the midpoint of our guidance, right, and you look at what the FFO needs to be in the third and the remaining quarters, the second quarter is going to be impacted in a little bit of a negative way, although it's up a little bit primarily because G&A is lower. The third and fourth quarters are going to be up pretty meaningfully. A lot of that is coming from occupancy that is occurring on leases that we've either already signed or we are signing. That is going to be coming in through the same store primarily. That is why if you just look at, I think we're at 1.66 in the second quarter, 1.64 in the first quarter. We got an average like $1.78 or something in the other two quarters in the third and fourth quarter. That is coming from that ramp up. That is what you are seeing. Thank you. I share our next question in the queue comes from the line of Omotayo Okusanya from Deutsche Bank. Please go ahead. Hi, yes. Good afternoon. Thanks. Good morning. Thanks for taking the time. Doug, I feel like there's been a lot of focus in just what areas are slowing economy and kind of what it could mean to your numbers and the expectation of a ramp up in the back half. Could you talk about potential opportunities to actually exceed guidance, and what could be some of those kind of factors? I just want to make sure I heard you right. Just answer your question again because it was a little blurry. Sure. I think, again, on the call, we've talked a lot about potential risks to your numbers accelerating in the back half, whether it's the slowing economy or clients taking a little bit longer to make decisions. I'm curious for us to flip that around and kind of hear from you in terms of opportunities where you could actually have better numbers and what would kind of drive some of that. Yeah. Simply put, increasing the amount of leasing that we're doing on vacant space where we're able to recognize the revenue more quickly is going to drive that. We have, again, a lot of opportunities in both our Manhattan portfolio, which is obviously where the most strength is. That includes 510 Madison Avenue and 360 Park Avenue South. At our Embarcadero Center portfolio in San Francisco, we have opportunities for meaningful increases in occupancy. Those areas will be where, if we have outsized performance for our leasing in 2025, they will come from. Again, we have yet to see any signs of duress or hesitancy in either of those markets to date. Not to say that it won't happen. Lots of macroeconomists are calling for negative GDP growth and a recession and all kinds of things like that. Again, in our behavior of our client interactions, we're not witnessing that yet. Thank you. I share our next question comes from the line of Dylan Burzinski from Green Street. Please go ahead. Morning, guys. Thanks for taking the question. Just sort of wanted to go back to some of the comments on a lot of your West Coast markets and particularly still seeing tenants rationalize or downsize space, particularly amongst the legacy larger big tech companies. However, meanwhile, in certain markets like New York, right, you're seeing Google renew a lot of their space. You're seeing Amazon take down new expansionary space. Clearly, there's some appetite for space across their footprints and markets outside the West Coast. I guess just as you think about it and speak with these tenants and speak with brokers and whatnot, at what point of the downsizing cycle for a lot of these tenants on the West Coast do you think we're in? Do you think they still have another 20%-30% of their space to get back, or do you think it's going to be more incremental from this point on? I'll start the question or the answer, and I'll let Rod Diehl comment on what's going on in his view in the West Coast, and then I'll let Hillary talk about the contrast in New York. My comment would be you have to separate what's going on in the CBD of San Francisco from a downsizing to what's potentially going on down in the Silicon Valley or the peninsula, however you want to describe it. It's a very different place. I think that you're seeing de minimis, if any, significant increases in sub-leasing or terminations of lease upon expiration in greater CBD San Francisco today. You are seeing pieces of meaningful amounts of space from technology companies that overall in the greater Silicon Valley are still available and could be made available. My guess is if you asked one of some of the large tech companies if they could rationalize more space, the answer would probably be yes. I think that's sort of the big picture perspective. In the city of Manhattan, I think it's a little bit more subtle. We have some organizations that are growing significantly, and then we have some that are, I'd say, remaining status quo, but not necessarily downsizing. Rod, I'll let you go first, and then I'll ask Hillary for her remarks. Yeah, thanks, Doug. I think it's a good observation that some of these legacy larger tech companies that are based in the Bay Area, while they may have excess space in the Bay Area, are still very active in other markets. I mean, as we talk to our clients in that sector, we're hearing that. I think in the Bay Area, what you've got is when you look at the big firms that are based here, they have a lot of owned space in addition to the leased space. I think you're seeing them, each one of them with a little bit of a different story, but they're, in their own way, consolidating into their premier workplaces, if you will. They've taken maybe spaces in the anticipation of growth that maybe are not of the quality they want. Those are the spaces they're putting on the market for sub-lease, and they're folding back into their core better properties. I think in the Bay Area, at least, those firms still do have some excess capacity, and we're going to have to work through that in supply. You see that in the statistics. I think that's what I would say with the firms that are based in the Bay Area in particular. Rod, that's more of a Peninsula/ Silicon Valley issue than a City of San Francisco issue, right? Yeah. I mean, I think there are some examples of that in San Francisco, but it's mostly down in the valley and with the largest firms that are down there. I mean, each one of them kind of has their own story, but there's probably more of that space down in the valley. I'm talking excess capacity, sub-lease space, than there is in San Francisco. Hillary, your view on what's sort of going on with large tech in Manhattan? With large tech in Manhattan, specifically on tech, I would say that the large tech is stable at this point. We've heard that Meta has taken some space that they were planning to sub-lease off the market and will be occupying that themselves in Hudson Yards. You referenced the Amazon transaction. That's obviously positive for that building and absorption in the market. We're also starting to see more activity in the smaller tech space in and around Midtown South. That has been a net positive because most of the big leasing that's been done in that submarket has actually been done by more traditional type tenants coming out of Midtown proper. As it pertains to tech, I'd say New York feels stable, and we are starting to see some green shoots on the leasing front. More broadly speaking, in terms of downsizing versus folks expanding, if I could just give one statistic of all the leasing activity that the New York region did in the first quarter, which was just over 390,000 sq ft, 11,000 sq ft was a straight renewal. Everything else was either a new tenant or an expansion. If that gives you a sense of the pressure of demand in New York, I thought that was a pretty interesting statistic. Doug, one additional thing for Boston, both tech and called conventional clients, whether it's law or finance, is that we are seeing a trend where there's an adjustment being made as people understand their workforce needs greater. There was an undershot, in other words, not enough space allocated for focus work. There was maybe extra collaboration space that's all getting used, but we're hearing from several clients in both of those sectors, tech included, that, "Hey, we undershot the focus work areas," and they're needing to add on that. We will see how the formula turns out and whether that's a big nice absorption issue for us, but it is definitely happening where they start to get a greater handle on the percentages of workspace they need. Thank you. I share our next question comes from the line of Brendan Lynch from Barclays. Please go ahead. Great. Thanks for taking my question. I wanted to follow up on your comments around pulling forward some expirations to redevelop assets. It sounds like the specifics of those redevelopment projects are still under consideration. Can you just talk about when that might be finalized and when the actual development process might be able to begin? That is a very fluid entitlement and user equation that has to sort of get resolved. As an example, Bryan and his team in Boston are at the moment having a conversation about a piece of existing office space that they are thinking they might be able to get zoned for a meaningful amount of multifamily, right? As that conversation sort of moves forward, there is a jurisdiction, there is a state, there are transportation issues, all that sort of has to get resolved. These are time-consuming processes. It is very hard to sort of give you a short duration date for that stuff. Unlikely any of it will be actively in development in 2025, but opportunities for some of this stuff to really start to commence in 2026 and 2027. Thank you. I share our last question in the queue comes from the line of Peter Abramowitz from Jefferies. Please go ahead. Yes. Thanks for taking the question. Just wanted to ask about 125 Broadway. I believe Biogen announced they're going to be moving to a new development elsewhere in Cambridge. I know you have until 2028 to address that, but just curious about kind of the asset, whether you think it needs any repositioning or whether it's something that you think you can just release kind of as is, and how much of that space is traditional lab space versus office and thinking about positioning that for potentially a new tenant. Yeah. I'll just describe what the building is, and I'll let Bryan describe the market. 125 Broadway is a true lab building, which is predominantly lab infrastructure, and it's been the home of Biogen for 30-plus years. The building has been reinvested by Biogen, but I am sure when Biogen moves out, if in fact they're moving out, they haven't told us they're moving out, but there's a presumption that they're moving out. There will be some amount of work that needs to get done to rethink the systems in the building, but it's in all likelihood going to continue to be a life science building. Yeah. We're going with the assumption, as Doug said, that they would be moving out. However, they have told us point blank that they're still assessing their needs. Several of those needs are called specialized uses within that particular building and determining whether or not, in fact, it can go to the next phase. In terms of that being in the cluster that we have there, if we get that building back, we would be highly confident in that as a product. We are talking to Biogen about their entire portfolio needs there, which we have had there for 40 years. There is a lot of fluidity to it. Thank you. I'm sure no further questions in the queue at this time. That concludes our Q&A session. At this time, I'd like to turn the call back to Owen Thomas for closing remarks. No further remarks. Thank all of you for your attention and interest in BXP. Thank you. This concludes today's conference call. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect. Good day.