![](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="96" height="96"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
This is related to a conversation I had over dinner last week with : Implementing "Shared Parking" is just as important as *reducing* parking requirements
When we simply reduce parking requirements (but do not implement shared parking) the highest and best use for an apartment developer is to build a single use residential building of as many small units as possible.
Why? Because the residents of small units, Studios and 1BRs, are the least likely to need cars. And because Developers focus on single asset classes and the retail is so small, it immaterial to the value they are creating.
On a side note, this is also one to a reason why apartment amenities have gotten more luxurious. It's generally not desirable, to tenants) to put units on the ground level of an apartment building. So as long as the height restrictions do not impinge on the overall buildable area, it makes more sense for the developer to fill the ground floor with "amenities." The golf simulator, demonstration kitchen and co-working spaces are considered, for parking count, to be ancillary to the residential. So an 1000sf Resident Lounge doesn't add a single parking space requirement. But if the same space was Retail, it would be 4 spaces
When a single use apartment building goes up, we are now "locked in" to a lack of retail in that building. Retrofitting an existing amenity space into a restaurant or even a coffee shop becomes nearly impossoble when there is no chase for a vent through the building. So now we are left with this urban form where people live over HERE, but their coffee shop is over THERE
To the specific changes that I believe balance both short term and long term considerations:
1. Shared Parking implemented (any spot must be able to be used for more than 1 use)
2. Retail/mixed-use is required on the ground floor of new apartment buildings
The requirement for the ground level mixed-use would be something like "Every area of the building that is accessible or visible directly from any sidewalk or public road must have a public entrance and/or a minimum glazing %"
Now in terms of the USE of these ground floor, we would need to give extreme latitude on how developers laid the space out. It is not realistic that retailers, would actually want that space today. So it would still need to be amenities ... also because large developers frankly don't have an incentive to take on the headache and risk of taking a chance on a smaller tenant.
BUT after the building is leased up, and other projects are similarly developed in the area ... the the public access of those spaces AND the longer term ownership structure of the owners who buy buildings from developers, mean that there is an incentive and flexibility to give a 500sf tenant a chance.
Quote
Noah Smith 
@Noahpinion
Everyone talks about housing and transit. But we also need to be talking more about SHOPS:
noahpinion.blog/p/shops-make-a
