The "StrongTowns/NotJustBikes" crowd populating these threads believes that the lack of parking actually increases a retail shop's patronage.
Free street parking that is occupied all day by the same car results in at most one net new customer, which isn’t good, and most street parking in the US is either free or priced low enough that people park too long.
Almost as bad is street parking: even if it's turning over it does not matter since you have a very limited number of spots and no place to wait for a spot so most people will just move on if they don't find a spot (and won't go to such a place intentionally as the chance of catching a free spot is miniscule).
with most of America though, it's hard work because actually getting to that level of density is chicken and egg; and then of course in California the ghost of Prop 13 rears its head and discourages residential densification in particular.
It’s certainly possible; Seattle and Portland have dense commercial centers outside of downtowns that are lively with little net new parking.
If you just removed the parking and replaced it with nothing, that wouldn't increase patronage.
But if you used that area to increase density instead, that could increase patronage. Especially if you go dense enough for the area to become a destination in itself and to make public transport a sensible option.
Really the root issue is that there is too much retail square footage in the US. Retail sq ft per person is 23 sq ft, compared to 2-5 in Europe and Japan. In that context building new retail is a fool’s errand. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1058852/retail-space-per...
My theory is that they build the first floor facing the street as "retail" because they don't think an apartment in such a location will be profitable (much less so a condo) as it's going to be a very hard sell for the prospective tenants/owners. It's much cheaper than residential space and if somebody leases it - you get some profit but if not, you are not losing much.