A lot of places need to learn how to accommodate cyclists since we already deal with a lot of nonsense that would be considered inconceivable in the case of motorists. Consider parking. Not only do most cities stipulate how much parking must be available for vehicles, no one is going to put up with parking spaces that are so narrow that vehicles are physically touching one another. In contrast, cyclists frequently have to fit their bikes together like a jigsaw puzzle. That is assuming that space is made available in the first place. Hunting down a sign or small tree are often the only options.
Then there are the other indignities, the most common being improperly installed stands. My current favourite though is how my city installed some post and ring stands, then used them to secure signs for a construction project. (The irony is that cyclists now have to secure their bikes to sign posts that are secured by bike stands!) Whenever parking is reduced due to construction, city hall hears about it. Whenever a bike stand is rendered useless, cyclists are supposed to be grateful for what we have.
As for the space requirements for the Sheffields, the least efficient arrangement that I can think of would still handle six bikes in one parking spot. When you factor in the amount of space used by aisles, which don't need to be as wide for bikes, the average will be closer to 17 bikes per parking space. That is not much of a sacrifice. Indeed, it would free up a fair amount of space. Space that could be used for homes, businesses, or even parkland assuming that you could convince people to bike instead.
(I did some quick arithmetic: two parking spots separated by an aisle is 450 square feet, or the size of a small apartment. Managing to eliminate 25 parking spots is the equivalent of freeing up a quarter acre lot, which is sufficient for detached home and yard.)