After Game 5's win, I was feeling confident that the Toronto Blue Jays would win the World Series. History placed us at roughly a 75% probability of success. Polymarket had even flipped in favor of the Jays for the first time. We were up 3–2 in the series and heading home.
But of course that didn't happen on Saturday. Toronto lost.
We Torontonians will always remember the 2025 Blue Jays and how fun of a season it was, but history doesn't care about second place. What history will remember is that the Los Angeles Dodgers went back-to-back and strengthened their baseball dynasty. This is to be expected.
But here's the thing, if you watched the series, you'll know that it could have gone either way. We lost in Game 7 in extra innings, after looking like the better team throughout most of the series.
What if Isiah Kiner-Falefa had taken a slightly bigger lead at third? What if that ball had never gotten improbably wedged under the outfield padding? What if Andy Pages had collided with Kiké Hernandez and not made the catch? The list goes on.
My point is not to be a sore loser — congratulations to Los Angeles — my point is that a few millimeters are all it takes to separate sadness from celebration. (Inches also work, but I prefer to use the international standard for weights and measures.)
It's a good lesson for life and business. Small, consistent changes can be all that it takes, especially because over time they compound.
It reminds me of something that chef Daniel Hadida says in this video when talking about Restaurant Pearl Morissette (in the Niagara Benchlands). He says, "I'm willing to go significantly harder to achieve slightly better." And that's because slightly is all it takes.
Erica Alini of The Globe and Mail just published this article called, "The era of the shoebox condo is over." You should read it, and not just because I'm quoted in it. One thing that I appreciate about the article is that it gets into some of the development economics underlying new projects.
The high-level math provided by Bryn Davidson of Lanefab (Vancouver) once again shows that land is the residual claimant in a pro forma and that the price developers can feasibly pay needs to be greater than the status-quo value. It's exactly what I was getting at in this recent post about the Impossible Toronto publication.
The other thing I'd like to highlight is the following chart showing the share of three-bedroom apartments in newly built condominiums and purpose-built rentals in the city:
What's interesting about this six-year period of completions is that there isn't a meaningful difference between condominiums and rentals. Average unit sizes as a whole tend to be slightly larger in rental projects, but in terms of the share of three-bedroom suites and the average size of those three-bedrooms, the differences aren't meaningful.
This suggests that it's less about investors "distorting" the market (see pundits talking about the condo market), and more about the fact that the demand isn't there. And the reason the demand isn't there is because these types of homes are expensive. If you can afford $5,000 per month in rent, you generally have some options.
Table from the Globe and Mail; cover photo by Lotus Design N Print on Unsplash
A decision on legalizing small businesses like cafés and corner stores in the interior of Toronto’s neighbourhoods — under a framework city planners had winnowed down since last year in the face of heavy opposition from residents’ associations — has once again been punted into the future.
At Toronto’s Planning and Housing committee on Thursday, officials decided to defer a decision on allowing more small businesses in neighbourhood interiors, instead green-lighting changes only along major streets and to the rules for home-based businesses, which still require final approval from city council.
Planning changes always seem to happen slowly, painfully, and incrementally. I remember giving presentations on laneway housing back in 2013-2014, and I would always say "this is inevitable — it's a question of when, not if."
At the time, this felt like a bold statement because it was nearly impossible to get a laneway house approved. You had to be cunning, willing to fight for years and, even then, you might not be successful. Now they're permitted as-of-right and they, frankly, no longer feel novel. They're just something we do around here.
Of course, the same will eventually be true of small-scale neighbourhood retail. Especially because it was what we used to do before we created rules against it. But as always, things happen slowly, painfully, and incrementally.
If you'd like to download the proposed Major Streets Zoning By-law Amendment, click here, and if you'd like to download the proposed Home Occupations Zoning By-law Amendment, click here.
Cover photo by Dan Burton on Unsplash