FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS

Certain statements contained herein constitute forward-looking statements as such term is defined in Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of performance. They involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions. Our future results, financial condition and business may differ materially from those expressed in these forward-looking statements. You can find many of these statements by looking for words such as “approximates,” “believes,” “expects,” “anticipates,” “estimates,” “intends,” “plans” “would,” “may” or other similar expressions in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. In addition, references to our budgeted amounts are forward looking statements. These forward-looking statements represent our intentions, plans, expectations and beliefs and are subject to numerous assumptions, risks and uncertainties. Many of the factors that will determine these items are beyond our ability to control or predict. For further discussion of these factors see “Item 1A. Risk Factors” in this annual report on Form 10-K.

For these statements, we claim the protection of the safe harbor for forward-looking statements contained in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on our forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K or the date of any document incorporated by reference. All subsequent written and oral forward-looking statements attributable to us or any person acting on our behalf are expressly qualified in their entirety by the cautionary statements contained or referred to in this section. We do not undertake any obligation to release publicly any revisions to our forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

2

H Street Building Corporation (“H Street”)

On July 20, 2005, the Company acquired H Street, which owns directly or indirectly through stock ownership in corporations, a 50% interest in real estate assets located in Pentagon City, Virginia, including 34 acres of land leased to various residential and retail operators, a 1,670 unit apartment complex, 10 acres of land and two office buildings located in Washington, D.C. containing 577,000 square feet. The purchase price was approximately $246,600,000, consisting of $194,500,000 in cash and $52,100,000 for the Company’s pro rata share of existing mortgage debt.

On July 22, 2005, two corporations 50% owned by H Street filed a complaint against the Company, H Street and three parties affiliated with the sellers of H Street in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia alleging that the Company encouraged H Street and the affiliated parties to breach their fiduciary duties to these corporations and interfered with prospective business and contractual relationships. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages and a rescission of the Company’s acquisition of H Street. In addition, on July 29, 2005, a tenant under a ground lease with one of these corporations brought a separate suit in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, alleging, among other things, that the Company’s acquisition of H Street violated a provision giving them a right of first offer and on that basis seeks a rescission of the Company’s acquisition and the right to acquire H Street for the price paid by the Company. On September 12, 2005, the Company filed a complaint against each of these corporations and their acting directors seeking a restoration of H Street’s full shareholder rights and damages. These legal actions are currently in the discovery stage. The Company believes that the actions filed against the Company are without merit and that it will ultimately be successful in defending against them.

Toys “R” Us, Inc. (“Toys”)

On July 21, 2005, a joint venture owned equally by the Company, Bain Capital and Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. acquired Toys for $26.75 per share in cash or approximately $6.6 billion. In connection therewith, the Company invested $428,000,000 of the $1.3 billion of equity in the venture, consisting of $407,000,000 in cash and $21,000,000 in Toys common shares held by the Company.

On August 29, 2005, the Company acquired $150,000,000 of the $1.9 billion one-year senior unsecured bridge loan financing provided to Toys. The loan is senior to the acquisition equity of $1.3 billion and $1.6 billion of existing debt. The loan bears interest at LIBOR plus 5.25% (9.43% as of December 31, 2005) not to exceed 11% and provides for an initial .375% placement fee and additional fees of .375% at the end of three and six months if the loan has not been repaid. The loan is prepayable at any time without penalty. On December 9, 2005, $73,184,000 of this loan was repaid to the Company.

On January 9, 2006, Toys announced plans and is in the process of closing 87 Toys “R” Us stores in the United States, of which twelve stores will be converted into Babies “R” Us stores, five leased properties are expiring and one has been sold. Vornado is handling the leasing and disposition of the real estate of the remaining 69 stores. As a result of the store-closing program, Toys will incur restructuring and other charges aggregating approximately $155,000,000 before tax, which includes $45,000,000 for the cost of liquidating inventory. Of this amount, approximately $99,000,000 will be recorded in Toys’ fourth quarter ending January 28, 2006 and $56,000,000 will be recorded in the first quarter of their next fiscal year. These estimated amounts are preliminary and remain subject to change. The Company’s 32.95% share of the $155,000,000 charge is $51,000,000, of which $36,000,000 will have no income statement effect as a result of purchase price accounting and the remaining portion relating to the cost of liquidating the inventory of approximately $9,000,000 after-tax, will be recorded as an expense in the first quarter of 2006.

40 East 66^th Street

On July 25, 2005, the Company acquired a property located at Madison Avenue and East 66^thStreet in Manhattan for $158,000,000 in cash. The property contains 37 rental apartments with an aggregate of 85,000 square feet, and 10,000 square feet of retail space.

220 Central Park South

On August 26, 2005, a joint venture in which the Company has a 90% interest acquired a property located at 220 Central Park South in Manhattan for $136,550,000. The Company and its partner invested cash of $43,400,000 and $4,800,000, respectively, in the venture to acquire the property. The venture obtained a $95,000,000 mortgage loan that bears interest at LIBOR plus 3.50% (8.04% as of December 31, 2005) and matures in August 2006, with two six-month extensions. The property contains 122 rental apartments with an aggregate of 133,000 square feet and 5,700 square feet of commercial space.

5

Investment in Sears, Roebuck and Co. (“Sears”)

In July and August 2004, the Company acquired an aggregate of 1,176,600 common shares of Sears, Roebuck and Co. (“Sears”) for $41,945,000, an average price of $35.65 per share. On March 30, 2005, upon consummation of the merger between Sears and Kmart, the Company received 370,330 common shares of Sears Holdings Corporation (Nasdaq: SHLD) (“Sears Holdings”) and $21,797,000 of cash in exchange for its 1,176,600 Sears common shares. The Sears Holdings common shares were valued at $48,143,000, based on the March 30, 2005 closing share price of $130.00. As a result the Company recognized a net gain of $27,651,000, the difference between the aggregate cost basis in the Sears shares and the market value of the total consideration received of $69,940,000. On April 4, 2005, 99,393 of the Company’s Sears Holdings common shares with a value of $13,975,000 were utilized to satisfy a third-party participation. The remaining 270,937 Sears Holdings shares were sold in the fourth quarter of 2005 at a weighted average sales price of $125.83 per share, which resulted in a net loss on disposition of $1,137,000, based on the March 30, 2005 adjusted cost basis of $130.00 per share. The Company’s net gain on its investment in these Sears shares was $26,514,000.

In August and September 2004, the Company acquired an economic interest in an additional 7,916,900 Sears common shares through a series of privately negotiated transactions with a financial institution pursuant to which the Company purchased a call option and simultaneously sold a put option at the same strike price on Sears common shares. These call and put options had an initial weighted-average strike price of $39.82 per share, or an aggregate of $315,250,000, expire in April 2006 and provide for net cash settlement. Under these agreements, the strike price for each pair of options increases at an annual rate of LIBOR plus 45 basis points and is credited for the dividends received on the shares. The options provide the Company with the same economic gain or loss as if it had purchased the underlying common shares and borrowed the aggregate strike price at an annual rate of LIBOR plus 45 basis points. Because these options are derivatives and do not qualify for hedge accounting treatment, the gains or losses resulting from the mark-to-market of the options at the end of each reporting period are recognized as an increase or decrease in “interest and other investment income” on the Company’s consolidated statement of income.

On March 30, 2005, as a result of the merger between Sears and Kmart and pursuant to the terms of the contract, the Company’s derivative position representing 7,916,900 Sears common shares became a derivative position representing 2,491,819 common shares of Sears Holdings valued at $323,936,000 based on the then closing share price of $130.00 and $146,663,000 of cash. As a result, the Company recognized a net gain of $58,443,000 based on the fair value of the derivative position on March 30, 2005. During the fourth quarter of 2005, 402,660 of the common shares were sold at a weighted average sales price of $123.77 per share. In accordance with the derivative agreements, the proceeds from these sales will remain in the derivative position until the entire position is settled or until expiration in April 2006. Based on Sears Holdings’ closing share price on December 31, 2005 of $115.53, the remaining shares in the derivative position have a market value of $241,361,000, which together with cash of $196,499,000 aggregates $437,860,000. In the period from March 31, 2005 through December 31, 2005, the Company recorded an expense of $43,475,000 from the derivative position, which consists of (i) $30,230,000 from the mark-to-market of the remaining shares in the derivative based on Sears Holdings $115.53 closing share price on December 31, 2005, (ii) $2,509,000 for the net loss on the shares sold based on a weighted average sales price of $123.77 and (iii) $10,736,000 resulting primarily from the increase in the strike price at an annual rate of LIBOR plus 45 basis points.

The Company’s aggregate net income recognized on the owned shares and the derivative position from inception to December 31, 2005 was $124,266,000.

Investment in Sears Canada Inc. (“Sears Canada”)

In connection with the Company’s investment in Sears Holdings Corporation, the Company acquired 7,500,000 common shares of Sears Canada between February and September of 2005 for an aggregate cost of $143,737,000, or $19.16 per share. On December 16, 2005, Sears Canada paid a special dividend, of which Vornado’s share was $120,500,000. As a result, the Company recognized $22,885,000 of income in the fourth quarter of 2005 (in addition to the unrecognized gain of $53,870,000 discussed below) and paid a $.77 special cash dividend on December 30, 2005 to shareholders of record on December 27, 2005. The Company accounts for its investment in Sears Canada as a marketable equity security classified as available-for-sale. Accordingly, the common shares are marked-to-market on a quarterly basis through “Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income” on the balance sheet. At December 31, 2005, based on a closing share price of $15.47, the unrecognized gain in Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income is $53,870,000.

6

Investment in McDonald’s Corporation (“McDonalds”) (NYSE: MCD)

In July 2005, the Company acquired an aggregate of 858,000 common shares of McDonalds for $25,346,000, an average price of $29.54 per share. These shares are recorded as marketable equity securities on the Company’s consolidated balance sheet and are classified as “available for sale.” Appreciation or depreciation in the fair market value of these shares is recorded as an increase or decrease in “accumulated other comprehensive income” in the shareholders’ equity section of the Company’s consolidated balance sheet and not recognized in income. At December 31, 2005, based on McDonalds’ closing stock price of $33.72 per share, $3,585,000 of appreciation in the value of these shares was included in “accumulated other comprehensive income.”

During the three months ended September 30, 2005, the Company acquired an economic interest in an additional 14,565,000 McDonalds common shares through a series of privately negotiated transactions with a financial institution pursuant to which the Company purchased a call option and simultaneously sold a put option at the same strike price on McDonalds’ common shares. These call and put options have an initial weighted-average strike price of $32.66 per share, or an aggregate of $475,692,000, expire on various dates between July 30, 2007 and September 10, 2007 and provide for net cash settlement. Under these agreements, the strike price for each pair of options increases at an annual rate of LIBOR plus 45 basis points (up to 95 basis points under certain circumstances) and is credited for the dividends received on the shares. The options provide the Company with the same economic gain or loss as if it had purchased the underlying common shares and borrowed the aggregate strike price at an annual rate of LIBOR plus 45 basis points. Because these options are derivatives and do not qualify for hedge accounting treatment, the gains or losses resulting from the mark-to-market of the options at the end of each reporting period are recognized as an increase or decrease in “interest and other investment income” on the Company’s consolidated statement of income. During the year ended December 31, 2005, the Company recorded net income of $17,254,000, comprised of (i) $15,239,000 from the mark-to-market of the options on December 31, 2005, based on McDonalds’ closing stock price of $33.72 per share, (ii) $9,759,000 of dividend income, partially offset by (iii) $7,744,000 for the increase in strike price resulting from the LIBOR charge.

Based on McDonalds’ most recent filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Company’s aggregate investment in McDonalds represents 1.2% of McDonalds’ outstanding common shares.

Broadway Mall

On December 27, 2005, the Company acquired the Broadway Mall, located on Route 106 in Hicksville, Long Island, New York, for $152,500,000, consisting of $57,600,000 in cash and $94,900,000 of existing mortgage debt. The mall contains 1.2 million square feet, of which 1.0 million is owned by the Company, and is anchored by Macy’s, Ikea, Multiplex Cinemas and Target.

Warner Building

On December 27, 2005, the Company acquired the 95% interest that it did not already own in the Warner Building, a 560,000 square foot class A office building located at 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue three blocks from the White House. The purchase price was approximately $319,000,000, consisting of $170,000,000 in cash and $149,000,000 of existing mortgage and other debt.

Rosslyn Plaza

On December 20, 2005, the Company acquired a 46% partnership interest in, and became co-general partner of, partnerships that own a complex in Rosslyn, Virginia, containing four office buildings with an aggregate of 714,000 square feet and two apartment buildings containing 195 rental units. The consideration for the acquisition consisted of 734,486 newly issued Vornado Realty L.P. partnership units (valued at $61,814,000) and $27,300,000 of its pro-rata share of existing debt. Of the partnership interest acquired, 19% was from Robert H. Smith and Robert P. Kogod, trustees of Vornado, and their family members, representing all of their interest in the partnership.

Boston Design Center

On December 28, 2005, the Company acquired the Boston Design Center, which contains 552,500 square feet and is located in South Boston, for $96,000,000, consisting of $24,000,000 in cash and $72,000,000 of existing mortgage debt. The Boston Design Center is operated by the Company’s Merchandise Mart division.

7

2005 DISPOSITIONS

400 North LaSalle

On April 21, 2005, the Company, through its 85% owned joint venture, sold 400 North LaSalle, a 452-unit high-rise residential tower in Chicago, Illinois, for $126,000,000, which resulted in a net gain on sale of $31,614,000. All of the proceeds from the sale were reinvested in tax-free “like-kind” exchange investments pursuant to Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code.

3700 Las Vegas Boulevard

On December 30, 2005, the Company sold its $3,050,000 senior preferred equity in 3700 Associates LLC, which owns 3700 Las Vegas Boulevard, a development land parcel, and recognized a net gain of $12,110,000. In addition, the purchaser repaid the Company’s $5,000,000 senior mezzanine loan to the venture.

2005 MEZZANINE LOAN ACTIVITY

On January 7, 2005, all of the outstanding General Motors Building loans aggregating $275,000,000 were repaid. In connection therewith, the Company received a $4,500,000 prepayment premium and $1,996,000 of accrued interest and fees through January 14, 2005, which is included in “interest and other income” on the Company’s consolidated statement of income for the year ended December 31, 2005.

On February 3, 2005, the Company made a $135,000,000 mezzanine loan to Riley Holdco Corp., an entity formed to complete the acquisition of LNR Property Corporation (NYSE: LNR). The terms of the financings are as follows: (i) $60,000,000 of a $325,000,000 mezzanine tranche of a $2,400,000,000 credit facility secured by certain equity interests and which is junior to $1,900,000,000 of the credit facility, bears interest at LIBOR plus 5.25% (9.64% as of December 31, 2005) and matures in February 2008 with two one-year extensions; and (ii) $75,000,000 of $400,000,000 of unsecured notes which are subordinate to the $2,400,000,000 credit facility and senior to over $700,000,000 of equity contributed to finance the acquisition. These notes mature in February 2015, provide for a 1.5% placement fee, and bear interest at 10% for the first five years and 11% for years six through ten.

On April 7, 2005, the Company made a $108,000,000 mezzanine loan secured by The Sheffield, a 684,500 square foot mixed-use residential property in Manhattan, containing 845 apartments, 109,000 square feet of office space and 6,900 square feet of retail space. The loan is subordinate to $378,500,000 of other debt, matures in April 2007 with a one-year extension, provides for a 1% placement fee, and bears interest at LIBOR plus 7.75% (12.14% at December 31, 2005).

On May 11, 2005, the Company’s $83,000,000 loan to Extended Stay America was repaid.

On December 7, 2005, the Company made a $42,000,000 mezzanine loan secured by The Manhattan House, a 780,000 square foot mixed-use residential property in Manhattan containing 583 apartments, 45,000 square feet of retail space and an underground parking garage. The loan is subordinate to $630,000,000 of other debt, matures in November 2007 with two one-year extensions and bears interest at LIBOR plus 6.25% (10.64% at December 31, 2005).

9

DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

The Company is currently engaged in various development/redevelopment projects for which it has budgeted approximately $718.5 million. Of this amount, $10.0 million was expended prior to 2005, $117.5 million was expended in 2005 and $228.0 million is estimated to be expended in 2006. Below is a description of these projects.

During 2004 and 2005, the PTO vacated approximately 1,864,000 square feet in the Company’s Crystal City office buildings and will vacate an additional 75,000 square feet in the first quarter of 2006. The Company plans to redevelop certain of these buildings, including Crystal Plaza Two, Three and Four, which have been taken out of service. Crystal Plaza Two, subject to governmental approvals, will be converted from a 13-story office building, containing 181,000 square feet, to a 19-story, 256 unit, residential tower containing 265,000 rentable/saleable square feet, at an estimated cost of $85,000,000 to $92,000,000. Renovations to Crystal Plaza Three and Four include new mechanical systems, restrooms, lobbies and corridors. The renovations to Crystal Plaza Three and Four are expected to be completed by the end of 2006 at an approximate cost of $65,900,000. Renovations to the remaining office buildings not taken out of service include common area and exterior renovations. See Item II — Properties for details of the lease up of the PTO space.

In addition, to the projects noted above, on July 19, 2005 a joint venture, owned 50% by the Company, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding and has been conditionally designated as the developer to convert a portion of the Farley Post Office in Manhattan into the new Moynihan Train Station. The plans for the Moynihan Station project involve 300,000 square feet for a new transportation facility to be financed with public funding, as well as 850,000 square feet of commercial space and up to 1,000,000 square feet of air rights intended to be transferred to an adjacent site. The commercial space is currently anticipated to include a variety of retail uses, restaurants, a boutique hotel and merchandise mart space. The joint venture is also considering alternate variations of this project, which may include a sports arena, which would give rise to a much larger scale redevelopment opportunity.

The Company is also in the pre-development phase of other real estate projects for which final plans and budgeted costs have yet to be determined. Such projects include: (i) redeveloping certain shopping malls, including the South Hills and Springfield Malls, (ii) redeveloping and expanding retail space in the Penn Plaza area, (iii) converting an industrial warehouse in Garfield, New Jersey to 500,000 square feet of retail space, (iv) converting residential apartment buildings to condominiums, including 220 Central Park South and 40 East 66^th Street, (v) redeveloping certain assets in the SoHo area of Manhattan, and (vi) redeveloping and expanding the Beverly Connection shopping center in Los Angeles, California to include residential condominium units and assisted living facilities.

There can be no assurance that any of the above projects will commence or be completed on schedule or on budget.

10

COMPETITION

The Company’s business segments – Office, Retail, Merchandise Mart Properties, Temperature Controlled Logistics, and Toys “R” Us, as well as its other investments, operate in highly competitive environments. The Company has a large concentration of properties in the New York City metropolitan area and in the Washington, D.C. and Northern Virginia area. The Company competes with a large number of real estate property owners and developers. Principal factors of competition are rent charged, attractiveness of location, the quality of the property and breadth and quality of services provided. The Company’s success depends upon, among other factors, trends of the national and local economies, financial condition and operating results of current and prospective tenants and customers, availability and cost of capital, construction and renovation costs, taxes, governmental regulations, legislation and population trends. The Company’s interest in Toys “R” Us will also be affected by competition from discount and mass merchandisers.

CERTAIN ACTIVITIES

Acquisitions and investments are not required to be based on specific allocation by type of property. The Company has historically held its properties for long-term investment; however, it is possible that properties in the portfolio may be sold in whole or in part, as circumstances warrant, from time to time. Further, the Company has not adopted a policy that limits the amount or percentage of assets which would be invested in a specific property. While the Company may seek the vote of its shareholders in connection with any particular material transaction, generally the Company’s activities are reviewed and may be modified from time to time by its Board of Trustees without the vote of shareholders.

EMPLOYEES

As of December 31, 2005, the Company and its majority-owned subsidiaries had approximately 3,015 employees, of which 269 were corporate staff. The Office segment had 107 employees and 1,286 employees of Building Maintenance Services, a wholly-owned subsidiary. The Retail segment, the Merchandise Mart segment, the Washington D.C. Office segment and the Hotel Pennsylvania had 71, 511, 190 and 524 employees, respectively. The forgoing does not include employees of partially-owned entities, including 6,459 Americold Realty Trust employees and 79,872 Toys “R” Us, Inc. employees.

SEGMENT DATA

The Company operates in five business segments: Office Properties, Retail Properties, Merchandise Mart Properties, Temperature Controlled Logistics and Toys “R” Us.

The Merchandise Mart segment has trade show operations in Canada. The Temperature Controlled Logistics segment manages one warehouse in Canada. The Toys segment operates in 306 locations internationally. In addition, the Company has a 25% equity investment in TCG Urban Infrastructure Holdings in India, which is included in the Other segment. Information related to the Company’s business segments for the years 2005, 2004 and 2003 is set forth in Note 19 - Segment Information to the Company’s consolidated financial statements in this annual report on Form 10-K.

PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICES

The Company’s principal executive offices are located at 888 Seventh Avenue, New York, New York 10019; telephone (212) 894-7000.

MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON OUR WEBSITE

Copies of the Company’s annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports, as well as Reports on Forms 3, 4 and 5 regarding officers, trustees or 10% beneficial owners of the Company, filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a), 15(d) or 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 are available free of charge through our website (www.vno.com) as soon as reasonably practicable after it is electronically filed with, or furnished to, the Securities and Exchange Commission. We also have made available on our website copies of our Audit Committee Charter, Compensation Committee Charter, Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee Charter, Code of Business Conduct and Ethics and Corporate Governance Guidelines. In the event of any changes to these charters or the code or guidelines, changed copies will also be made available on our website.

12

Our Investments Are Concentrated in the New York and Washington D.C. Metropolitan Areas.  Circumstances Affecting These Areas Generally Could Adversely Affect Our Business.

A significant portion of our properties are in the New York City/New Jersey and Washington, D.C. metropolitan areas and are affected by the economic cycles and risks inherent to those areas.

During 2005, approximately 73% of our EBITDA excluding items that affect comparability, came from properties located in New Jersey and the New York City and Washington, D.C. metropolitan areas.  In addition, we may continue to concentrate a significant portion of our future acquisitions in New Jersey and the New York City and Washington, D.C. metropolitan areas.  Like other real estate markets, the real estate markets in these areas have experienced economic downturns in the past, and we cannot predict how economic conditions will impact these markets in both the short and long term.  Declines in the economy or a decline in the real estate markets in these areas could hurt our financial performance and the value of our properties.  The factors affecting economic conditions in these regions include:

•                space needs of the United States Government, including the effect of base closures and repositioning under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, as amended;

•      business layoffs or downsizing;

•      industry slowdowns;

•      relocations of businesses;

•      changing demographics;

•      increased telecommuting and use of alternative work places;

•                financial performance and productivity of the publishing, advertising, financial, technology, retail, insurance and real estate industries;

•      infrastructure quality; and

•      any oversupply of, or reduced demand for, real estate.

It is impossible for us to assess the future effects of the current uncertain trends in the economic and investment climates of the New York City/New Jersey and Washington, D.C. regions, and more generally of the United States, or the real estate markets in these areas.  If these conditions persist or if there is any local, national or global economic downturn, our businesses and future profitability may be adversely affected.

Terrorist attacks, such as those of September 11, 2001 in New York City and the Washington, D.C. area, may adversely affect the value of our properties and our ability to generate cash flow.

We have significant investments in large metropolitan areas, including the New York, Washington, D.C. and Chicago metropolitan areas.  In the aftermath of any terrorist attacks, tenants in these areas may choose to relocate their businesses to less populated, lower-profile areas of the United States that may be perceived to be less likely targets of future terrorist activity and fewer customers may choose to patronize businesses in these areas.  This in turn would trigger a decrease in the demand for space in these areas, which could increase vacancies in our properties and force us to lease our properties on less favorable terms.  As a result, the value of our properties and the level of our revenues could decline materially.

We May Acquire or Sell Additional Assets or Develop Additional Properties.  Our Failure or Inability to Consummate These Transactions or Manage the Results of These Transactions Could Adversely Affect Our Operations and Financial Results.

We have grown rapidly through acquisitions.  We may not be able to maintain this rapid growth and our failure to do so could adversely affect our stock price.

We have experienced rapid growth in recent years, increasing our total assets from approximately $565 million at December 31, 1996 to approximately $13.6 billion at December 31, 2005.  We may not be able to maintain a similar rate of growth in the future or manage our growth effectively.  Our failure to do so may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations and ability to pay dividends to our shareholders.

16

We may acquire or develop properties or acquire other real estate related companies and this may create risks.

We may acquire or develop properties or acquire other real estate related companies when we believe that an acquisition or development is consistent with our business strategies.  We may not, however, succeed in consummating desired acquisitions or in completing developments on time or within budget. In addition, we may face competition in pursuing acquisition or development opportunities that could increase our costs. When we do pursue a project or acquisition, we may not succeed in leasing newly developed or acquired properties at rents sufficient to cover their costs of acquisition or development and operations.  Difficulties in integrating acquisitions may prove costly or time-consuming and could divert management’s attention. Acquisitions or developments in new markets or industries where we do not have the same level of market knowledge may result in poorer than anticipated performance. We may also abandon acquisition or development opportunities that we have begun pursuing and consequently fail to recover expenses already incurred and have devoted management time to a matter not consummated. Furthermore, our acquisitions of new properties or companies will expose us to the liabilities of those properties or companies, some of which we may not be aware at the time of acquisition. In addition, development of our existing properties presents similar risks.

It may be difficult to buy and sell real estate quickly.

Real estate investments are relatively difficult to buy and sell quickly.  Consequently, we may have limited ability to vary our portfolio promptly in response to changes in economic or other conditions.

We may not be permitted to dispose of certain properties or pay down the debt associated with those properties when we might otherwise desire to do so without incurring additional costs.

As part of an acquisition of a property, including our January 1, 2002, acquisition of Charles E. Smith Commercial Realty L.P.’s 13.0 million square foot portfolio, we may agree, and in the case of Charles E. Smith Commercial Realty L.P. did agree, with the seller that we will not dispose of the acquired properties or reduce the mortgage indebtedness on them for significant periods of time unless we pay certain of the resulting tax costs of the seller.  These agreements could result in our holding on to properties that we would otherwise sell and not pay down or refinance indebtedness that we would otherwise pay down or refinance.

On January 1, 2002, we completed the acquisition of the 66% interest in Charles E. Smith Commercial Realty L.P. that we did not previously own.  The terms of the merger restrict our ability to sell or otherwise dispose of, or to finance or refinance, the properties formerly owned by Charles E. Smith Commercial Realty L.P., which could result in our inability to sell these properties at an opportune time and increased costs to us.

Subject to limited exceptions, we are restricted from selling or otherwise transferring or disposing of certain properties located in the Crystal City area of Arlington, Virginia or an interest in our division that manages the majority of our office properties in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, which we refer to as the Washington D.C. Office Division, for a period of 12 years with respect to certain properties located in the Crystal City area of Arlington, Virginia or six years with respect to an interest in the Washington D.C. Office Division.  These restrictions, which currently cover approximately 13.0 million square feet of space, could result in our inability to sell these properties or an interest in the Washington D.C. Office Division at an opportune time and increase costs to us.

17

From time to time we make investments in companies over which we do not have sole control. Some of these companies operate in industries that differ from our current operations, with different risks than investing in real estate.

From time to time we make debt or equity investments in other companies that we may not control or over which we may not have sole control.  These investments include but are not limited to:  a 33% interest in Alexander’s, Inc.; a 15.8% interest in The Newkirk Master Limited Partnership; a 11.3% interest in GMH Communities L.P.; a 1.3% common equity interest in Sears Holdings Corporation; a 1.2% common equity interest in McDonalds Corporation; a 7.0% common equity interest in Sears Canada, Inc.; and equity and mezzanine investments in other real estate related companies.  In addition, on July 21, 2005, a joint venture that we own equally with Bain Capital and Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. acquired Toys “R” Us, Inc.  Although they generally have a significant real estate component, several of these entities operate in businesses that are different from our line of business including, without limitation, operating or managing toy stores, department stores, fast food restaurants, refrigerated warehouses and student and military housing facilities. Consequently, our investment in these businesses, among other risks, subjects us to the operating and financial risks of industries other than real estate and to the risk that we do not have sole control over the operations of these businesses.  From time to time we may (or may seek to) make additional investments in or acquire other entities that may subject us to additional similar risks. Our investments in entities over which we do not have sole control, including joint ventures, present additional risks such as our having differing objectives than our partners or the entities in which we invest or our becoming involved in disputes or competing with those persons. In addition, we rely on the internal controls and financial reporting controls of these entities and their failure to comply with applicable standards may adversely affect us.

We are subject to risks that affect the general retail environment.

A substantial proportion of our properties are in the retail shopping center real estate market and we have a significant investment in retailers such as Toys “R” Us, Inc. See “Our investment in Toys “R” Us, Inc. subjects us to risks different from our other lines of business and may result in increased seasonality and volatility in our reported earnings” below. This means that we are subject to factors that affect the retail environment generally, including the level of consumer spending and consumer confidence, the threat of terrorism and increasing competition from discount retailers, outlet malls, retail websites and catalog companies. These factors could adversely affect the financial condition of our retail tenants and the retailers in which we hold an investment and the willingness of retailers to lease space in our shopping centers.

We depend upon our anchor tenants to attract shoppers.

We own several regional malls and other shopping centers that are typically anchored by well-known department stores and other tenants who generate shopping traffic at the mall or shopping center. The value of our properties would be adversely affected if tenants or anchors failed to meet their contractual obligations, sought concessions in order to continue operations or ceased their operations. If the sales of stores operating in our properties were to decline significantly due to economic conditions, closing of anchors or for other reasons, tenants may be unable to pay their minimum rents or expense recovery charges. In the event of a default by a tenant or anchor, we may experience delays and costs in enforcing our rights as landlord.

Our investment in Toys “R” Us, Inc. subjects us to risks different from our other lines of business and may result in increased seasonality and volatility in our reported earnings.

On July 21, 2005, a joint venture that we own equally with Bain Capital and Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. acquired Toys “R” Us, Inc. (“Toys”). Because Toys is a retailer, its operations subject us to the risks of a retail company that are different than those presented by our other lines of business. The business of Toys is highly seasonal. Historically, Toys fourth quarter net income accounts for more than 80% of its fiscal year net income. In addition, our fiscal year ends on December 31 whereas, as is common for retailers, Toys’ fiscal year ends on the Saturday nearest to January 31. Therefore, we record our pro-rata share of Toys’ net income (loss) on a one quarter-lag basis.  For example, our financial results for the fourth quarter ended December 31, 2005 include Toys’ financial results for their third quarter ended October 29, 2005, and our financial results for the year ended December 31, 2006 will include Toys’ financial results for its first, second and third quarters ended October 28, 2006, as well as Toys’ fourth quarter results of 2005. Because of the seasonality of Toys, our reported net income will likely show increased volatility.

18

Our Organizational and Financial Structure Gives Rise to Operational and Financial Risks.

We May Not Be Able to Obtain Capital to Make Investments.

We depend primarily on external financing to fund the growth of our business.  This is because one of the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, for a REIT is that it distribute 90% of its net taxable income, excluding net capital gains, to its shareholders. There is a separate requirement to distribute net capital gains or pay a corporate level tax in lieu thereof.  Our access to debt or equity financing depends on the willingness of third parties to lend or make equity investments and on conditions in the capital markets generally.  We and other companies in the real estate industry have experienced limited availability of financing from time to time.  Although we believe that we will be able to finance any investments we may wish to make in the foreseeable future, new financing may not be available on acceptable terms.

For information about our available sources of funds, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Liquidity and Capital Resources” and the notes to the consolidated financial statements in this annual report on Form 10-K.

Vornado Realty Trust depends on dividends and distributions from its direct and indirect subsidiaries. The creditors and preferred security holders of these subsidiaries are entitled to amounts payable to them by the subsidiaries before the subsidiaries may pay any dividends or distributions to Vornado Realty Trust.

Substantially all of Vornado Realty Trust’s assets are held through its Operating Partnership that holds substantially all of its properties and assets through subsidiaries.  The Operating Partnership depends for substantially all of its cash flow on cash distributions to it by its subsidiaries, and Vornado Realty Trust in turn depends for substantially all of its cash flow on cash distributions to it by the Operating Partnership.  The creditors of each of Vornado Realty Trust’s direct and indirect subsidiaries are entitled to payment of that subsidiary’s obligations to them, when due and payable, before distributions may be made by that subsidiary to its equity holders.  Thus, the Operating Partnership’s ability to make distributions to holders of its units depends on its subsidiaries’ ability first to satisfy their obligations to their creditors and then to make distributions to the Operating Partnership.  Likewise, Vornado Realty Trust’s ability to pay dividends to holders of common and preferred shares depends on the Operating Partnership’s ability first to satisfy its obligations to its creditors and make distributions payable to holders of preferred units and then to make distributions to Vornado Realty Trust.

Furthermore, the holders of preferred units of the Operating Partnership are entitled to receive preferred distributions before payment of distributions to holders of common units of the Operating Partnership, including Vornado Realty Trust.  Thus, Vornado Realty Trust’s ability to pay dividends to holders of its shares and satisfy its debt obligations depends on the Operating Partnership’s ability first to satisfy its obligations to its creditors and make distributions payable to holders of preferred units and then to make distributions to Vornado Realty Trust.  As of December 31, 2005, there were nine series of preferred units of the Operating Partnership not held by Vornado Realty Trust that have preference over Vornado Realty Trust common shares with a total liquidation value of $402,405,000.

In addition, Vornado Realty Trust’s participation in any distribution of the assets of any of its direct or indirect subsidiaries upon the liquidation, reorganization or insolvency, is only after the claims of the creditors, including trade creditors, and preferred security holders, if any, of the applicable direct or indirect subsidiaries are satisfied.

We have indebtedness, and this indebtedness, and its cost, may increase.

As of December 31, 2005, we had approximately $6.3 billion in total debt outstanding.  Our ratio of total debt to total enterprise value was approximately 35.6%.  When we say “enterprise value” in the preceding sentence, we mean market equity value of Vornado Realty Trust’s common and preferred shares plus total debt outstanding, including our pro rata share of the debt of partially-owned entities.  In the future, we may incur additional debt, and thus increase our ratio of total debt to total enterprise value, to finance acquisitions or property developments. If our level of indebtedness increases, there may be an increased risk of default on our obligations that could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations. In addition, in a rising interest rate environment, the cost of our floating rate debt and any new debt or other market rate security or instrument may increase.

19

Covenants in our debt instruments could adversely affect our financial condition and our acquisitions and development activities.

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 other loans that we may obtain in the future contain customary restrictions, requirements and other limitations on our ability to incur indebtedness, including covenants that limit our ability to incur debt based upon the level of our ratio of total debt to total assets, our ratio of secured debt to total assets, our ratio of EBITDA to interest expense, and fixed charges, and that require us to maintain a certain level of unencumbered assets to unsecured debt. Our ability to borrow under our credit facilities is subject to compliance with certain financial and other covenants. In addition, failure to comply with our covenants could cause a default under the applicable debt instrument, 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, 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 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 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.

Vornado Realty Trust might fail to qualify or remain qualified as a REIT and may be required to pay income taxes at corporate rates.

Although we believe that we will remain organized and will continue to operate so as to qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes, we might fail to remain qualified in this way.  Qualification as a REIT for federal income tax purposes is governed by highly technical and complex provisions of the Internal Revenue Code for which there are only limited judicial or administrative interpretations.  Our qualification as a REIT also depends on various facts and circumstances that are not entirely within our control. In addition, legislation, new regulations, administrative interpretations or court decisions might significantly change the tax laws with respect to the requirements for qualification as a REIT or the federal income tax consequences of qualification as a REIT.

If, with respect to any taxable year, Vornado Realty Trust fails to maintain its qualification as a REIT and does not qualify under statutory relief provisions, it could not deduct distributions to shareholders in computing its taxable income and would have to pay federal income tax on its taxable income at regular corporate rates.  The federal income tax payable would include any applicable alternative minimum tax.  If Vornado Realty Trust had to pay federal income tax, the amount of money available to distribute to shareholders and pay its indebtedness would be reduced for the year or years involved, and Vornado Realty Trust would no longer be required to distribute money to shareholders.  In addition, Vornado Realty Trust would also be disqualified from treatment as a REIT for the four taxable years following the year during which qualification was lost, unless it was entitled to relief under the relevant statutory provisions.  Although Vornado Realty Trust currently intends to operate in a manner designed to allow it to qualify as a REIT, future economic, market, legal, tax or other considerations may cause it to revoke the REIT election or fail to qualify as a REIT.

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. The shortfall in tax revenues for states and municipalities in recent years 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 payment of dividends.

Loss of our key personnel could harm our operations and adversely affect the value of our common shares.

We are dependent on the efforts of Steven Roth, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees and Chief Executive Officer of Vornado Realty Trust, and Michael D. Fascitelli, the President of Vornado Realty Trust. While we believe that we could find replacements for these key personnel, the loss of their services could harm our operations and adversely affect the value of our common shares.

20

Vornado Realty Trust’s charter documents and applicable law may hinder any attempt to acquire us.

Our Amended and Restated Declaration of Trust sets limits on the ownership of our shares.

Generally, for Vornado Realty Trust to maintain its qualification as a REIT under the Internal Revenue Code, not more than 50% in value of the outstanding shares of beneficial interest of Vornado Realty Trust may be owned, directly or indirectly, by five or fewer individuals at any time during the last half of Vornado Realty Trust’s taxable year.  The Internal Revenue Code defines “individuals” for purposes of the requirement described in the preceding sentence to include some types of entities.  Under Vornado Realty Trust’s Amended and Restated Declaration of Trust, as amended, no person may own more than 6.7% of the outstanding common shares of any class, or 9.9% of the outstanding preferred shares of any class, with some exceptions for persons who held common shares in excess of the 6.7% limit before Vornado Realty Trust adopted the limit and other persons approved by Vornado Realty Trust’s Board of Trustees.  These restrictions on transferability and ownership may delay, deter or prevent a change in control of Vornado Realty Trust or other transaction that might involve a premium price or otherwise be in the best interest of the shareholders.  We refer to Vornado Realty Trust’s Amended and Restated Declaration of Trust, as amended, as the “declaration of trust.”

We have a classified Board of Trustees and that may reduce the likelihood of certain takeover transactions.

Vornado Realty Trust’s Board of Trustees is divided into three classes of trustees.  Trustees of each class are chosen for three-year staggered terms. Staggered terms of trustees may reduce the possibility of a tender offer or an attempt to change control of Vornado Realty Trust, even though a tender offer or change in control might be in the best interest of Vornado Realty Trust’s shareholders.

We may issue additional shares in a manner that could adversely affect the likelihood of certain takeover transactions.

Vornado Realty Trust’s declaration of trust authorizes the Board of Trustees to:

•      cause Vornado Realty Trust to issue additional authorized but unissued common shares or preferred shares;

•      classify or reclassify, in one or more series, any unissued preferred shares;

•      set the preferences, rights and other terms of any classified or reclassified shares that Vornado Realty Trust issues; and

•      increase, without shareholder approval, the number of shares of beneficial interest that Vornado Realty Trust may issue.

The Board of Trustees could establish a series of preferred shares whose terms could delay, deter or prevent a change in control of Vornado Realty Trust or other transaction that might involve a premium price or otherwise be in the best interest of Vornado Realty Trust’s shareholders, although the Board of Trustees does not now intend to establish a series of preferred shares of this kind. Vornado Realty Trust’s declaration of trust and bylaws contain other provisions that may delay, deter or prevent a change in control of Vornado Realty Trust or other transaction that might involve a premium price or otherwise be in the best interest of our shareholders.

The Maryland General Corporation Law contains provisions that may reduce the likelihood of certain takeover transactions.

Under the Maryland General Corporation Law, as amended, which we refer to as the “MGCL,” as applicable to real estate investment trusts, certain “business combinations,” including certain mergers, consolidations, share exchanges and asset transfers and certain issuances and reclassifications of equity securities, between a Maryland real estate investment trust and any person who beneficially owns ten percent or more of the voting power of the trust’s shares or an affiliate or an associate, as defined in the MGCL, of the trust who, at any time within the two-year period before the date in question, was the beneficial owner of ten percent or more of the voting power of the then outstanding voting shares of beneficial interest of the trust, which we refer to as an “interested shareholder,” or an affiliate of the interested shareholder, are prohibited for five years after the most recent date on which the interested shareholder becomes an interested shareholder.  After that five-year period, any business combination of these kinds must be recommended by the board of trustees of the trust and approved by the affirmative vote of at least (a) 80% of the votes entitled to be cast by holders of outstanding shares of beneficial interest of the trust and (b) two-thirds of the votes entitled to be cast by holders of voting shares of the trust other than shares held by the interested shareholder with whom, or with whose affiliate, the business combination is to be effected, unless, among other conditions, the trust’s common shareholders receive a minimum price, as defined in the MGCL, for their shares and the consideration is received in cash or in the same form as previously paid by the interested shareholder for its common shares.  The provisions of the MGCL do not apply, however, to business combinations that are approved or exempted by the board of trustees of the applicable trust before the interested shareholder becomes an interested shareholder, and a person is not an interested shareholder if the board of trustees approved in advance the transaction by which the person otherwise would have become an interested shareholder.

21

In approving a transaction, the board may provide that its approval is subject to compliance, at or after the time of approval, with any terms and conditions determined by the board.  Vornado Realty Trust’s Board has adopted a resolution exempting any business combination between any trustee or officer of Vornado Realty Trust, or their affiliates, and Vornado Realty Trust.  As a result, the trustees and officers of Vornado Realty Trust and their affiliates may be able to enter into business combinations with Vornado Realty Trust that may not be in the best interest of shareholders.  With respect to business combinations with other persons, the business combination provisions of the MGCL may have the effect of delaying, deferring or preventing a change in control of Vornado Realty Trust or other transaction that might involve a premium price or otherwise be in the best interest of the shareholders.  The business combination statute may discourage others from trying to acquire control of Vornado Realty Trust and increase the difficulty of consummating any offer.

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

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

Our Ownership Structure and Related-Party Transactions May Give Rise to Conflicts of Interest.

Steven Roth and Interstate Properties may exercise substantial influence over us.  They and some of our other trustees and officers have interests or positions in other entities that may compete with us.

As of December 31, 2005, Interstate Properties, a New Jersey general partnership, and its partners owned approximately 9.2% of the common shares of Vornado Realty Trust and approximately 27.7% of the common stock of Alexander’s, Inc.  Steven Roth, David Mandelbaum and Russell B. Wight, Jr. are the three partners of Interstate Properties.  Mr. Roth is the Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Vornado Realty Trust, the managing general partner of Interstate Properties and the Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Alexander’s.  Messrs. Wight and Mandelbaum are trustees of Vornado Realty Trust and also directors of Alexander’s.

As of December 31, 2005, the Operating Partnership owned 33% of the outstanding common stock of Alexander’s.  Alexander’s is a REIT engaged in leasing, managing, developing and redeveloping properties, focusing primarily on the locations where its department stores operated before they ceased operations in 1992.  Alexander’s has six properties, which are located in the New York City metropolitan area.  Mr. Roth and Mr. Fascitelli, the President and a trustee of Vornado Realty Trust, are directors of Alexander’s. Messrs. Mandelbaum, West and Wight are trustees of Vornado Realty Trust and are directors of Alexander’s.

Because of these overlapping interests, Mr. Roth and Interstate Properties and its partners may have substantial influence over Vornado Realty Trust and Alexander’s and on the outcome of any matters submitted to Vornado Realty Trust or Alexander’s shareholders for approval.  In addition, certain decisions concerning our operations or financial structure may present conflicts of interest among Messrs. Roth, Mandelbaum and Wight and Interstate Properties and our other equity or debt holders.  In addition, Mr. Roth and Interstate Properties and its partners currently and may in the future engage in a wide variety of activities in the real estate business which may result in conflicts of interest with respect to matters affecting us or Alexander’s, such as which of these entities or persons, if any, may take advantage of potential business opportunities, the business focus of these entities, the types of properties and geographic locations in which these entities make investments, potential competition between business activities conducted, or sought to be conducted, by us, Interstate Properties and Alexander’s, competition for properties and tenants, possible corporate transactions such as acquisitions and other strategic decisions affecting the future of these entities.

Vornado Realty Trust currently manages and leases the real estate assets of Interstate Properties under a management agreement for which it receives an annual fee equal to 4% of base rent and percentage rent and certain other commissions.  The management agreement has a term of one year and is automatically renewable unless terminated by either of the parties on 60 days’ notice at the end of the term.  Vornado Realty Trust earned $791,000, $726,000, and $703,000 of management fees under the management agreement for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003.  Because of the relationship among Vornado Realty Trust, Interstate Properties and Messrs. Roth, Mandelbaum and Wight, as described above, the terms of the management agreement and any future agreements between Vornado Realty Trust and Interstate Properties may not be comparable to those Vornado Realty Trust could have negotiated with an unaffiliated third party.

22

There may be conflicts of interest between Alexander’s and us.

As of December 31, 2005, the Operating Partnership owned 33% of the outstanding common stock of Alexander’s.  Alexander’s is a REIT engaged in leasing, managing, developing and redeveloping properties, focusing primarily on the locations where its department stores operated before they ceased operations in 1992.  Alexander’s has six properties.  Interstate Properties, which is described above, and its partners owned an additional 27.7% of the outstanding common stock of Alexander’s, as of December 31, 2005.  Mr. Roth, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Vornado Realty Trust, is Chief Executive Officer, a director of Alexander’s and managing general partner of Interstate, and Mr. Fascitelli, President and a trustee of Vornado Realty Trust, is President and a director of Alexander’s.  Messrs. Mandelbaum, West and Wight, trustees of the Company, are also directors of Alexander’s and general partners of Interstate.  Alexander’s common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “ALX.”

The Operating Partnership manages, develops and leases the Alexander’s properties under management and development agreements and leasing agreements under which the Operating Partnership receives annual fees from Alexander’s.  These agreements have a one-year term expiring in March of each year, except that the Lexington Avenue management and development agreements have a term lasting until substantial completion of development of the Lexington Avenue property, and are all automatically renewable.  Because Vornado Realty Trust and Alexander’s share common senior management and because a majority of the trustees of Vornado Realty Trust also constitute the majority of the directors of Alexander’s, the terms of the foregoing agreements and any future agreements between us and Alexander’s may not be comparable to those we could have negotiated with an unaffiliated third party.

For a description of Interstate Properties’ ownership of Vornado Realty Trust and Alexander’s, see “Steven Roth and Interstate Properties may exercise substantial influence over us.  They and some of our other trustees and officers have interests or positions in other entities that may compete with us” above.

The Number of Shares of Vornado Realty Trust and the Market for Those Shares Give Rise to Various Risks.

Vornado Realty Trust has many shares available for future sale, which could hurt the market price of its shares.

As of December 31, 2005, we had authorized but unissued, 58,846,570 common shares of beneficial interest, $.04 par value, and 70,310,600 preferred shares of beneficial interest, no par value, of which 25,381,264 preferred shares have not been reserved and remain available for issuance as a newly-designated class of preferred.  We may issue these authorized but unissued shares from time to time in public or private offerings or in connection with acquisitions.

In addition, as of December 31, 2005, 15,333,673 Vornado Realty Trust common shares were reserved for issuance upon redemption of Operating Partnership common units.  Some of these shares may be sold in the public market after registration under the Securities Act under registration rights agreements between Vornado Realty Trust and some holders of common units of the Operating Partnership.  These shares may also be sold in the public market under Rule 144 under the Securities Act or other available exemptions from registration.  In addition, Vornado Realty Trust has reserved a number of common shares for issuance under its employee benefit plans, and these common shares will be available for sale from time to time.  Vornado Realty Trust has awarded shares of restricted stock and granted options to purchase additional common shares to some of its executive officers and employees. Of the authorized but unissued common and preferred shares above, 43,694,714 common and 44,929,336 preferred shares, in the aggregate, were reserved for issuance of shares upon the redemption of Operating Partnership units, conversion of outstanding convertible securities, under benefit plans or for other activity not directly under our control.

We cannot predict the effect that future sales of our common shares, preferred shares or Operating Partnership common units, or the perception that sales of common shares, preferred or Operating Partnership common units could occur, will have on the market prices for Vornado Realty Trust’s shares.

23

Washington, D.C. Office Properties:

The Company owns 91 properties aggregating 17.7 million square feet in the Washington, D.C. and Northern Virginia area, consisting of 70 office buildings, 2 residential properties and a hotel property, and a 50% interest in 18 properties through its acquisition of H Street Building Corporation on July 20, 2005. Three buildings have been taken out of service for redevelopment in 2005. The Company manages an additional 7.0 million square feet of office and other commercial properties. In addition, the Washington, D.C. Office Properties portfolio includes 21 garages totaling approximately 7.5 million square feet (26,000 spaces) which are managed by or leased to third parties. The garage space is excluded from the statistics provided in this section.

As of December 31, 2005, 28 percent of the space in the Washington, D.C. Office Properties portfolio is leased to various agencies of the U.S. government.

Occupancy and average annual escalated rent per square foot:

2005 revenue by tenants’ industry:

Washington, D.C. Office Properties leases are typically for four to seven year terms, and may provide for extension options at either pre-negotiated or market rates. Most leases provide for annual rental escalations throughout the lease term, plus recovery of increases in real estate taxes and certain property operating expenses over a base year. Annual rental escalations are typically based upon either fixed percentage increases or the consumer price index. Leases also typically provide for tenant improvement allowances for all or a portion of the tenant’s initial construction costs of its premises.

Tenants accounting for 2% or more of Washington, D.C. Office Properties revenues:

29

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) Space

The following table sets forth the Company’s original plan to re-lease the PTO space and the space leased through February 1, 2006.

(1)   Crystal Plaza Two, a 13-story office building, was taken out of service to be converted to a 19-story residential tower containing 265 rentable/saleable square feet and 256 apartments. The original plan assumed that this building would remain an office building to be re-leased in Q1 06.

Of the square feet leased to larger tenants, 261,000 square feet was leased to the Federal Supply Service (which will relocate from 240,000 square feet in other Crystal City buildings); 144,000 square feet was leased to KBR, a defense contractor; and 126,000 square feet was leased to the Public Broadcasting Service.  Straight-line rent per square foot for the square feet leased is $33.50, which is equal to the estimate in the original plan.  Tenant improvements and leasing commissions per square foot are $43.50 as compared to the original plan of $45.28.

31

RETAIL PROPERTIES SEGMENT

The Company owns 111 retail properties, of which 61 are strip shopping centers located in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic; 25 are supermarkets in Southern California; 7 are regional malls located in New York, New Jersey and San Juan, Puerto Rico; and 18 are retail properties located in New York City. The Company’s strip shopping centers and malls are generally located on major regional highways in mature, densely populated areas. The Company believes these properties attract consumers from a regional, rather than a neighborhood market place because of their location on regional highways.

Strip Shopping Centers:

The Company’s strip shopping centers contain an aggregate of 10.8 million square feet and are substantially (over 80%) leased to large stores (over 20,000 square feet). Tenants include destination retailers such as discount department stores, supermarkets, home improvement stores, discount apparel stores and membership warehouse clubs. Tenants typically offer basic consumer necessities such as food, health and beauty aids, moderately priced clothing, building materials and home improvement supplies, and compete primarily on the basis of price and location.

Regional Malls:

The Green Acres Mall in Long Island, New York contains 1.6 million square feet, and is anchored by four major department stores: Sears, J.C. Penney, Federated Department Stores, doing business as Macy’s and Macy’s Men’s Furniture Gallery. The complex also includes The Plaza at Green Acres, a 175,000 square foot strip shopping center which is anchored by Wal-Mart and National Wholesale Liquidators. The Company plans to renovate the interior and exterior of the mall and construct 100,000 square feet of free-standing retail space and parking decks in the complex, subject to governmental approvals. In addition, the Company has entered into a ground lease with B.J.’s Wholesale Club who will construct its own free-standing store in the mall complex. The expansion and renovation are expected to be completed in 2007.

The Monmouth Mall in Eatontown, New Jersey, owned 50% by the Company, contains 1.4 million square feet and is anchored by four department stores; Macy’s, Lord & Taylor, J.C. Penney and Boscovs, three of which own their stores aggregating 719,000 square feet. The joint venture plans to construct 80,000 square feet of free-standing retail space in the mall complex, subject to governmental approvals. The expansion is expected to be completed in 2007.

The Broadway Mall in Hicksville, Long Island, New York, contains 1.2 million square feet and is anchored by Macy’s, Ikea, Multiplex Cinema and Target, which owns its store containing 141,000 square feet.

The Bergen Mall in Paramus, New Jersey, as currently exists, contains 900,000 square feet. The Company plans to demolish approximately 300,000 square feet and construct approximately 580,000 square feet of retail space, which will bring the total square footage of the mall to approximately 1,360,000, including 180,000 square feet to be built by Target on land leased from the Company. As of December 31, 2005, the Company has taken 480,000 square feet out of service for redevelopment and leased 236,000 square feet to Century 21 and Whole Foods. All of the foregoing is subject to governmental approvals. The expansion and renovations, as planned, are expected to be completed in 2008.

The Montehiedra Mall in San Juan, Puerto Rico, contains 563,000 square feet and is anchored by Home Depot, Kmart, and Marshalls.

The South Hills Mall in Poughkeepsie, New York, contains 668,000 square feet and is anchored by Kmart and Burlington Coat Factory. The Company plans to redevelop and retenant the mall, subject to governmental approvals.

The Las Catalinas Mall in San Juan, Puerto Rico, contains 495,000 square feet and is anchored by Kmart and Sears, which owns its 140,000 square foot store.

33

Occupancy and average annual base rent per square foot:

At December 31, 2005, the aggregate occupancy rate for the 16,169,000 square feet of Retail Properties was 95.6%.

Strip Shopping Centers:

Regional Malls:

Manhattan Retail:

Manhattan retail is comprised of 18 properties containing 602,000 square feet, which were 90.9% occupied at December 31, 2005.

2005 revenue by type of retailer:

Shopping center lease terms range from five years or less in some instances for smaller tenant spaces to as long as 25 years for major tenants. Leases generally provide for additional rents based on a percentage of tenants’ sales and pass through to tenants of the tenants’ share of all common area charges (including roof and structure in strip shopping centers, unless it is the tenant’s direct responsibility), real estate taxes and insurance costs and certain capital expenditures. Percentage rent accounted for less than 1% of total shopping center revenues in 2005. None of the tenants in the Retail segment accounted for more than 10% of the Company’s 2005 total revenues.

34

Tenants accounting for 2% or more of 2005 Retail Properties revenues: