Canada's 'housing bubble' deemed close to bursting

[someone123]

Originally Posted by geotag277

Percentages don't matter as much as absolute growth. Only a handful of Canadian cities grew by 30k people. Toronto also grows by about 1.3%, but that equals 70k people - almost half the entire city of Moncton.

Percentages are useful because they indicate changes in the amount of land or real estate available per person. A city's capacity to manage an influx of people is likely to be proportional to its size. Vancouver has hundreds of thousands of housing units already developed and housing starts of around 20,000 per year.

Fort McMurray is another counterexample to your line of reasoning here. It experienced lots of inflation despite the fact that the absolute growth numbers there were much smaller than in the major cities. Prices went up because the population change was large with respect to the available capacity for building new housing. Often it's the smallest, most remote towns where you see the most volatile prices.

Another example to consider is Montreal. Slightly larger absolute change in population than Vancouver, much more stable housing market.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by someone123

Percentages are useful because they indicate changes in the amount of land or real estate available per person.

Available land is an absolute number. it doesn't care about population growth rate. There is either enough land to supply 10k new single family homes or there isn't. Once it runs out, that's it. It's gone. Percentages are not useful at all.

Prices went up because the population change was large with respect to the available capacity for building new housing.

With regards to both Fort McMurray and Vancouver, exactly. The difference being Fort McMurray's land values were artificially inflated because they are literally in the middle of nowhere with almost unlimited capacity to build single family detached housing. Vancouver not so much. There is nothing in this that argues against my logic.

Another example to consider is Montreal. Slightly larger absolute change in population than Vancouver, much more stable housing market.

Montreal has been leading the country in terms of embracing multi family living to balance it's housing market. Way, way, way ahead of Vancouver in terms of sustainable urban development. That has helped keep prices in check. If Vancouver continues to build multi family, you will see the same thing - which is already starting to happen thanks to sources provided by whatnext and cornholio.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by geotag277

No one thing alone is going to explain anything. The signs were there since the 90s that land was the primary factor in Vancouver's pricing, again, when Vancouver was only slightly larger than Ottawa is today, and now it is at a critical junction where the genie is not going back in the bottle.

If PRC money was "the primary factor", why are multi family unit pricing stagnating? Why is there significant "absorption risk" to multi family developments? Why are only single family detached homes the runaway train?

Land constraints are the primary factor.

Every single one of your questions could be answered by the same very simple answer which is also IMO a very likely hypothesis: "Because Chinese buyers, for various reasons, some of them probably cultural, overwhelmingly think that the best investment is a detached SFH, considered a tear down because old-is-no-good, and replaced by a brand new monster SFH."

The Van price history charts shows they're fully correct, but that's a total self-fulfilling prophecy: the Chinese are correct in believing that SFHs are the best performing Vancouver real estate investment vehicle, but the reason for SFHs being the best performing Vancouver real estate investment vehicle is that the Chinese all believe that SFHs are the best performing Vancouver real estate investment vehicle.

Since they're the main driver of the market, whatever they favor becomes what's desirable.

Before the Chinese there was no market value downside whatsoever to a -4 address and no market value upside whatsoever to a -8 address in Van. I've been in real estate for over a decade now and I'm pretty familiar with markets in Sherbrooke, Quebec City, Greater Orlando/Space Coast, northern NH close to the Quebec Townships, and Amarillo in Texas, and I guarantee you that properties with 4s in their addresses perform just as well as property with 8s in them in every single market I've just listed (and if I could state that with confidence about other markets, I'd add them to that list -- I'm sure the exhaustive list is much much longer). In fact the mere idea of a noticeable market value difference based on fours versus eights was 100% alien to me before the Vancouver case made me learn something new about Chinese culture and beliefs.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by someone123

I was basically suggesting this, but I'll leave it to you to argue it.

I know you were suggesting this. I've seen enough of your posts on this matter (we also exchanged posts a few times in the past) that I already knew that we would be in agreement.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Sorry if I misunderstood your first points, but I still say you're dead wrong on the last.

Saving for a city house on a 33' x 120' lot should not be an unattainable dream. As little as 10 years ago you could get those for $600k. There is no logic in saying that homes closest to Vancouver's three biggest job generators (Downtown, UBC and YVR airport) should be locked up by people who aren't even working! And working folk should be expected to commute in from Abbotsford if they want a home? It doesn't make sense.

It might "not make sense", but that's part of the price to pay if we want to live in a free-ish society.

If I, living several thousand km away from Van, want to sell a bunch of properties in order to raise the requisite capital to buy and hug a property in Van's West End, IMO I should have the right to do that, even if you find it morally objectionable.

I know Paris wanted a few years ago to implement measures to prevent investors from hugging properties without bothering to rent them, but last I checked there were many possible ways around it. In fact, it might be interesting to look at their experiments, just out of curiosity. I've paid zero attention to Paris for a long time (my dad's uncle used to live there, but he moved out, and I haven't been there in over a decade) so I have no idea how it went, if they even did something, but the info should be readily available online should we want it.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by lio45

Before the Chinese there was no market value downside whatsoever to a -4 address and no market value upside whatsoever to a -8 address in Van. In fact the mere idea of a noticeable market value difference based on fours versus eights was 100% alien to me before the Vancouver case made me learn something new about Chinese culture and beliefs.

It gets even better than that. Having a cemetery or even a hospice in close proximity of a residence will spook ethnic Chinese even more so. To wit, a 15-bed hospice was proposed and eventually approved near a condominium complex at UBC back in 2011:

Fear of Ghosts Spawns Protest Against UBC Hospice

Published Thursday, January 13, 2011 5:06PM PST

Asian condo owners at the University of B.C. are protesting plans to build a hospice nearby, saying they're afraid of plummeting property values -- and ghosts.

Janet Fan, who owns a unit in a high rise on campus, has started a petition against plans for a 15-bed hospice in the empty lot next door.

"Eighty per cent of the residents in this building are Asian, and 100 per cent of them are very upset," she told CTV News.

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/fear-of-ghosts-spawns-protest-against-ubc-hospice-1.595907

As for further evidence of Feng Shui from personal experience:

1. My pop, in his mid-20, was already a SFD builder in Van City proper and prior to the closing of one SFD he noticed, late one night while driving by, that all the lights were on in the house. Naturally, he turned 'em all off. The next day, the ethnic Chinese purchasers called him and gave him shite as they wanted the lights on all night long in order to ward off "evil spirits";

2. Some family had sold a Metro Van neighbourhood shopping centre to someone from Hong Kong, during the early 1990's, and one of the subject clauses was "satisfactory review by a Feng Shui master";

Throw in a 4444 address into all of the foregoing... and yeah.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

It gets even better than that. Having a cemetery or even a hospice in close proximity of a residence will spook ethnic Chinese even more so. To wit, a 15-bed hospice was proposed and eventually approved near a condominium complex at UBC back in 2011:



http://bc.ctvnews.ca/fear-of-ghosts-spawns-protest-against-ubc-hospice-1.595907

As for further evidence of Feng Shui from personal experience:

1. My pop, in his mid-20, was already a SFD builder in Van City proper and prior to the closing of one SFD he noticed, late one night while driving by, that all the lights were on in the house. Naturally, he turned 'em all off. The next day, the ethnic Chinese purchasers called him and gave him shite as they wanted the lights on all night long in order to ward off "evil spirits";

2. Some family had sold a Metro Van neighbourhood shopping centre to someone from Hong Kong, during the early 1990's, and one of the subject clauses was "satisfactory review by a Feng Shui master";

Throw in a 4444 address into all of the foregoing... and yeah.

Peoples beliefs are difficult to judge, most people just accept we live in a diverse society that respects the beliefs of others.

There are these European immigrants that came to Vancouver over the last 100 years. Every Sunday morning they would gather in these sacred places (called churches). One of them would wear a white outfit talk about an all knowing creator and these angels that watch over everything they do during the week. They would then go back to their homes and thank this creator for their food before every meal. Society turned out ok after all.

The reality is we all have certain beliefs some well founded others perhaps not. These beliefs drive which homes we buy and where we chose to live. Canadian values are to accept and support this diversity.

[casper]

Originally Posted by someone123

....

Fort McMurray is another counterexample to your line of reasoning here. It experienced lots of inflation despite the fact that the absolute growth numbers there were much smaller than in the major cities. Prices went up because the population change was large with respect to the available capacity for building new housing. Often it's the smallest, most remote towns where you see the most volatile prices.....

I was living in Saskatoon during its last building boom. I think the dynamics are similar to Fort McMurray just not as extreme.

There were a lot of vacant Single Family lots available. Suddenly very quickly demand picked up. All the lots were sold. There was a lag of a year or more before more subdivisions could be designed, permitted, constructed and a new supply of lots make available. Once available there was a shortage of construction workers to build homes.

Under those conditions prices go up way out of proportion due to high demand and a lack of supply. Over time the market adjusts to match the new demand and prices moderate.

Absolutely it is more volatile that a place like Vancouver.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by geotag277

No one thing alone is going to explain anything. The signs were there since the 90s that land was the primary factor in Vancouver's pricing, again, when Vancouver was only slightly larger than Ottawa is today, and now it is at a critical junction where the genie is not going back in the bottle.

If PRC money was "the primary factor", why are multi family unit pricing stagnating? Why is there significant "absorption risk" to multi family developments? Why are only single family detached homes the runaway train?

Land constraints are the primary factor.

I agree to an extent. Metro Van's land constraints are beginning to come home to roost.

That said, condo sales/prices, which have been relatively flat for a decade, have now seen sales spike by ~30% and benchmark prices are also up year-over by over 20%. Some of the hotter markets are West Van, Van City proper, and Burnaby.

Even yesterday, on the 6 pm local Global BC newscast, a townhouse development in Langley had a long overnight line-up to purchase. Looking at the faces, they looked almost entirely Caucasian.

A few other factors: BC has the fastest growing economy, lowest unemployment rate, high net inter-provincial migration, immigration, etc.

But another key factor is the "consumer confidence" level, which is now at its highest level in BC... ever:

Bloomberg
Record Optimism in B.C. Helps Canada Consumer Confidence Rebound

May 2, 2016

Canadian consumer optimism is rising across the board, reaching record levels in British Columbia, telephone polling shows.

Confidence in British Columbia, the country’s third-most populous province, rose to 65.1 from 60.8 a week earlier. It’s the most-optimistic reading since polling began in 2008.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2...helps-canada-consumer-confidence-rebound

Now that's also a critical factor in the housing market and is also part of market psychology.

To put the foregoing into context, Metro Van's housing market was relatively flat/slightly declining during the ~1994 - 2003 time frame.

Back circa 2000, Ipsos-Reid had an opinion poll that confirmed only ~20% of BCers thought that the BC economy was "good". And I also recall another opinion poll back then that BC consumer confidence levels were also at a record low. Played a major part of market psychology back then - juxtaposed against today's environment.

Hell, numerous property foreclosures were brought to my attention back circa 2000 and, when an offer had been received subject to court approval, I got a heads up of the contracted amount and court date, attended at the court date, made a competing offer of a ~$few thousand more and picked up a few one-bedroom, concrete construction condos in Metro Van for between $30,000 and $35,000. Surreal prices. Also picked up some greenfield sites (houses situate upon acreage) in a similar manner.

Completely different market psychology in that environment.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by geotag277

Percentages don't matter as much as absolute growth. Only a handful of Canadian cities grew by 30k people. Toronto also grows by about 1.3%, but that equals 70k people - almost half the entire city of Moncton.

That's why it's a bit of a fool's errand to compare a city like Halifax to a city like Vancouver - they are fundamentally different growth pictures.

Also, again, as I explained before, if single family detached housing accounts for 30% of the population in 1995 - it stands to reason that the 30% wealthiest people will be able to afford those homes. If single family detached housing accounts for 5%, the bar moves to top 5%. And so on. The fact 30k people are moving to Vancouver every single year is putting upward pressure on the single family detached housing stock - especially as many people do not want to move and/or do not want to leave Vancouver (which one would have to do if they wanted to continue to live in a single family detached home). I agree they are lucky, if they can leave the Country or region. Most actually cant.



What is your source on this? I know several people in Alberta who are moving to Vancouver. Vancouver's economy is strong and it's unemployment rates are low, and people across Canada continue to flock there for opportunities.

Percentage is by far the most important thing because of absorption limits. Like I have said there is plenty of land left to develop. Earlier I posted a link to one of the many Urban land reserves, specifically one in Maple Ridge that is expected to be opened up in 2030 once Maple Ridge hits 100k people and develops most of its develop-able land, and this year is already pushed back by a decade due to slower then expected growth. Yet just over a month ago a house I am familiar with sold for 988k to a Persian couple who have not landed in Vancouver yet. This house is no less then 2 km's from the boundaries of that Urban land reserve that can easily support 5 to 10 thousand single family homes (of-course on the new standard 2.5-3.5k square foot lots.

As for your condo's and townhouses, they grew by over 20% over the past year in price. But no. No speculative bubble here.

I should add that occupants per household have gone down in this region. Presumably more homes (condos, townhouses, houses) are being bought then actually required.

We can agree to disagree. But absolutely every metric points to density and land constraints not being the important issue here, every metric points to supply not supposing to be a issue (occupants per household the key here) and every metric points to a very large speculative bubble. Speculative bubbles always collapse. No exceptions long term. See Spain, Ireland, Tokyo, US, UK, AU, etc. for housing bubbles China will join that list in a big way eventually and Canada as well.

Originally Posted by lio45

Well, yeah, obviously! But you'll also have to agree with me that it's utter nonsense to qualify that as "being hurt".

Imagine a New Yorker saying "my Brooklyn property has quadrupled in value lately, but the Manhattan property I should normally be graduating to at this stage of my career has sextupled in the meantime, so it's further out of reach than I would have expected. I'm being hurt financially!! Woe is me!"

Yeah, no, we certainly don't have the same definition of what being hurt financially is.

If you can't easily trade anymore your cheap-🞵🞵🞵 cookie-cutter starter Vancouver bungalow that you bought a long time ago and which is currently worth millions for a nicer SFH that's currently worth many more millions (as one used to be able to do), then so be it, but it's STILL been very good financially for you, no question about that. And if you wanted you could trade that cheap bland bungalow for a true mansion in Calgary, Montreal, even Toronto, and have money left over.

I was pointing out why home owners may support measures by the government to protect the market. People assume everyone benefits. Not everyone is lucky as say me and can pack their bags today sell everything and move the EU, US or MERCOSUR and work (well US have to get a TN visa). Most people are trapped in Canada. They don't actually see any benefits unless they downgrade but for many that is not something they planned to do at y stage of life.

[logan5]

Looking at home prices across the country, you will see that prices are relatively the same in cities where there are no geographical restraints. It's when you get to a city like Toronto, where lake Ontario cuts the cities growth potential in half, do we see a dramatic spike in home prices. Then another large spike in Vancouver, where there are geographical restraints on 3 sides of the Metro area, plus the ALR. Victoria, though a small city, is very land constrained, thus home prices there are now approaching Toronto.

http://www.crea.ca/housing-market-stats/national-average-price-map/

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by lio45

Every single one of your questions could be answered by the same very simple answer which is also IMO a very likely hypothesis: "Because Chinese buyers, for various reasons, some of them probably cultural, overwhelmingly think that the best investment is a detached SFH, considered a tear down because old-is-no-good, and replaced by a brand new monster SFH."

The Van price history charts shows they're fully correct, but that's a total self-fulfilling prophecy: the Chinese are correct in believing that SFHs are the best performing Vancouver real estate investment vehicle, but the reason for SFHs being the best performing Vancouver real estate investment vehicle is that the Chinese all believe that SFHs are the best performing Vancouver real estate investment vehicle.

This is just you working backwards from the assumption that all buyers are from mainland China, therefore, whatever happens in the Vancouver market is somehow exactly fitting in with the special psychology of mainland China buyers.

It is circular logic.

Everybody knows single family detached homes are *generally* the better long term investment compared to condos and townhomes. Everyone considering to buy a property, at least partially for investment purposes, will understand that. It has absolutely nothing to do with mainland China and is just real estate 101 common sense. Single family detached homes are traditionally the best investment, and the wealthiest residents of Vancouver will gravitate towards them when making their housing decisions. China is irrelevant in that regard.

Before the Chinese there was no market value downside whatsoever to a -4 address and no market value upside whatsoever to a -8 address in Van.

"Before the Chinese"? What are we talking about here? The year 1880? Chinese have always been a dominant minority within Vancouver, and certain neighbourhoods are exceeding 50% Chinese - not even from mainland China, but born and bred Canadian families who identify as ethnic Chinese. The Chinese have ALWAYS been a significant demographic in Vancouver and it would be silly as an individual marketing real estate to not play into some of those cultural quirks to promote property.

I've been in real estate for over a decade now and I'm pretty familiar with markets in Sherbrooke, Quebec City, Greater Orlando/Space Coast, northern NH close to the Quebec Townships, and Amarillo in Texas, and I guarantee you that properties with 4s in their addresses perform just as well as property with 8s in them in every single market I've just listed (and if I could state that with confidence about other markets, I'd add them to that list -- I'm sure the exhaustive list is much much longer). In fact the mere idea of a noticeable market value difference based on fours versus eights was 100% alien to me before the Vancouver case made me learn something new about Chinese culture and beliefs.

Somehow I think the demographics, especially related to Chinese buyers, are not the same in Amarillo Texas compared to Vancouver. Is that your special insight? It would be like you having the sudden revelation that there are more anglophone property buyers in Montreal compared to Quebec City. News at 11.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by lio45

It might "not make sense", but that's part of the price to pay if we want to live in a free-ish society.

If I, living several thousand km away from Van, want to sell a bunch of properties in order to raise the requisite capital to buy and hug a property in Van's West End, IMO I should have the right to do that, even if you find it morally objectionable.

I know Paris wanted a few years ago to implement measures to prevent investors from hugging properties without bothering to rent them, but last I checked there were many possible ways around it. In fact, it might be interesting to look at their experiments, just out of curiosity. I've paid zero attention to Paris for a long time (my dad's uncle used to live there, but he moved out, and I haven't been there in over a decade) so I have no idea how it went, if they even did something, but the info should be readily available online should we want it.

Just because Paris tried and failed doesn't mean no one is allowed to try again. Even Australia's measures are having mixed results, but we learn, we adjust, we close the loop holes, and we try again. The point is to try.

There is no logical inconsistency of saying that as a free society we will put certain limits on who can buy property to protect the local population's ability to afford housing, anymore than you could also argue that putting limits on who you are allowed to murder is also somehow against the spirit of a free society. After all, it is pretty easy to argue housing is a fundamental human right that should be accessible to all. There is no "free society constitution" that says lio must be entitled to buy property wherever he wants regardless of the consequences to local populations.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by logan5

Looking at home prices across the country, you will see that prices are relatively the same in cities where there are no geographical restraints. It's when you get to a city like Toronto, where lake Ontario cuts the cities growth potential in half, do we see a dramatic spike in home prices. Then another large spike in Vancouver, where there are geographical restraints on 3 sides of the Metro area, plus the ALR. Victoria, though a small city, is very land constrained, thus home prices there are now approaching Toronto.

http://www.crea.ca/housing-market-stats/national-average-price-map/

Victoria is a "spillover/satellite market" for the Vancouver market, which is boosted to completely out-of-whack heights by a powerful influx of capital from the PRC. That's why Victoria is expensive. It has little to do with land constraints.

Manhattan can sprawl ~270 degrees into NJ, PA, the Hudson Valley, and CT, for about as far as it wants.

London can sprawl to the North Sea, to the English Channel, to Wales, and to Scotland if it wants.

But their cores are seen by the global elite as a safe place to park their wealth in the form of real estate, so they're expensive, and the fact that the cities can sprawl isn't really a big factor -- it's totally dwarfed by the main factor, a big flow of money into the market from external sources.

In short, your argument doesn't hold much water.

BTW, Hamilton has the same "Lake Ontario Problem" as Toronto, yet it was quite cheap as of late... certainly a lot cheaper than Calgary which can sprawl freely in every direction.

Windsor has Michigan on two sides and Lake Erie preventing unlimited southward sprawl, yet it was the most stagnating market in the entire country bar none for a while.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by geotag277

"Before the Chinese"? What are we talking about here? The year 1880?

I would define "before the Chinese" as the period ending at the most recent point in Vancouver history -- I have no idea what year that would be, but I can try to guess and would probably not be off by more than a couple decades -- where you could still get the exact same market price, down to the penny, selling 444 Whatever Street through an unilingual Anglo realtor as you would selling its perfect clone 888 Whatever Street through a Chinese realtor fluent in Mandarin but also able to speak English.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by geotag277

Just because Paris tried and failed doesn't mean no one is allowed to try again. Even Australia's measures are having mixed results, but we learn, we adjust, we close the loop holes, and we try again. The point is to try.

I didn't even say Paris failed; I said it would be interesting to look at the results, because last I checked what they were planning on doing could be circumvented if people wanted to do it badly enough, but maybe it's not the way it played out. I have not kept an eye on that experiment at all, since I don't see myself buying Paris real estate anytime soon, and don't even see myself going back there anytime soon.

There is no logical inconsistency of saying that as a free society we will put certain limits on who can buy property to protect the local population's ability to afford housing, anymore than you could also argue that putting limits on who you are allowed to murder is also somehow against the spirit of a free society. After all, it is pretty easy to argue housing is a fundamental human right that should be accessible to all. There is no "free society constitution" that says lio must be entitled to buy property wherever he wants regardless of the consequences to local populations.

A society that functions as a "law of the jungle" place where it's okay to murder others -- and where it's up to people to plan accordingly and protect themselves -- is certainly noticeably closer to the "free" end of the individual freedom spectrum than a society where murder is prohibited.

Surely you can't refuse to admit that fact.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by lio45

A society that functions as a "law of the jungle" place where it's okay to murder others -- and where it's up to people to plan accordingly and protect themselves -- is certainly noticeably closer to the "free" end of the individual freedom spectrum than a society where murder is prohibited.

Surely you can't refuse to admit that fact.

It's not a fact and is easy to debunk. Laws are set up to optimize freedom across the population, not just to protect a few with the power. Freedom relates to the prey as much as the predator, in that the prey should have the freedom not to be murdered simply because he is weaker than the predator.

Optimizing laws so that one individual has maximal self-freedom to dictate his will over the rest of the world is not what anyone would call a "free society". It would instead be called an oppressive dictatorship.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by lio45

Victoria is a "spillover/satellite market" for the Vancouver market, which is boosted to completely out-of-whack heights by a powerful influx of capital from the PRC. That's why Victoria is expensive. It has little to do with land constraints.

Manhattan can sprawl ~270 degrees into NJ, PA, the Hudson Valley, and CT, for about as far as it wants.

London can sprawl to the North Sea, to the English Channel, to Wales, and to Scotland if it wants.

But their cores are seen by the global elite as a safe place to park their wealth in the form of real estate, so they're expensive, and the fact that the cities can sprawl isn't really a big factor -- it's totally dwarfed by the main factor, a big flow of money into the market from external sources.

In short, your argument doesn't hold much water.

BTW, Hamilton has the same "Lake Ontario Problem" as Toronto, yet it was quite cheap as of late... certainly a lot cheaper than Calgary which can sprawl freely in every direction.

Actually Hamilton has more expensive housing than Calgary. Hamilton home prices rose 14.9% over a 1 year period. A huge jump, just like other land constrained cities. Cities with no land constraints had very slight price increases or declines.

You seriously think its just a coincidence that the highest home prices are in land constrained cities?

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by logan5

Actually Hamilton has more expensive housing than Calgary. Hamilton home prices rose 14.9% over a 1 year period. A huge jump, just like other land constrained cities. Cities with no land constraints had very slight price increases or declines.

You seriously think its just a coincidence that the highest home prices are in land constrained cities?

Important to also note that land use policies also play a role in propping up artificial land constraints. Calgary has pushed over the past few years to limit sprawl, and places like Fort McMurray have artificial boundaries on development of single family home lots with a staggered development plan.

Real estate markets aren't complicated. It's supply and demand. If a location cannot build enough of one type of housing stock to meet demand, prices will rise. There are no special snowflakes.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by logan5

You seriously think its just a coincidence that the highest home prices are in land constrained cities?

Yeah, that sure does explain why the planet's most expensive real estate is found in

Originally Posted by lio45

Manhattan which can sprawl ~270 degrees into NJ, PA, the Hudson Valley, and CT, for about as far as it wants

and

Originally Posted by lio45

London which can sprawl to the North Sea, to the English Channel, to Wales, and to Scotland if it wants