What are Innovation Districts?

“Innovation districts constitute the ultimate mashup of entrepreneurs and educational institutions, startups and schools, mixed-use development and medical innovations, bike-sharing and bankable investments—all connected by transit, powered by clean energy, wired for digital technology, and fueled by caffeine.”

This quote poetically described an emerging geography of innovation—innovation districts—chronicled in the research titled The Rise of Innovation Districts. Bruce Katz and Julie Wagner, now leaders at The Global Institute on Innovation Districts, co-authored the report. Innovation districts are underpinned by leading-edge anchor institutions and companies, driving R&D and advanced knowledge-intensive activities, and characterized by their physical compactness, transit accessibility, and robust innovation infrastructure. Districts leverage the density and proximity of their components to foster collaboration and innovation.

The research observed how the rise of districts is due to a confluence of macroeconomic, demographic, and cultural forces. The Rise of Innovation Districts has influenced policy and practice in the decade since it appeared, effectively defining and shaping the innovation district model worldwide. For example, the report highlights that:

The ability to conceive innovation requires the engagement of diverse entrepreneurs, thinkers and experts. This encompasses highly specialized, research-oriented actors dedicated to developing cutting-edge technologies, products, and services for the market. These individuals are adept at mastering complex technologies and technological processes.
An economy increasingly oriented toward open innovation has changed both where firms locate and how they interact. The rise of smaller companies engaged in R&D has prompted greater collaboration between firms of various sizes to develop and advance innovation.
Innovation increasingly thrives on a diversity of institutions and individuals as the economic composition of districts themselves. This encompasses actors from different backgrounds, education levels, and areas of expertise. Such diversity catalyzes talent diversification, fostering a rich ecosystem for innovation.
Innovation districts also emerged given the growing role of technology on the economy, necessitating new knowledge exchange models. Their strength lies in their ability both to invent and prototype breakthrough technologies as well as solve technological challenges that emerge from the accelerated surge in areas such as production and decarbonization.

In the last few years alone, the accelerated rise and advancement of technology is undergirding new forms of competitive advantages that districts are capturing. GIID analysis identified that districts are highly differentiated given their work in advanced or enabling technologies such as quantum computing, artificial intelligence, big data, and nanotechnology. Artificial intelligence, in particular, is revolutionizing innovation, accelerating breakthroughs at an unprecedented pace. The growing agglomeration of tech-rich firms found in districts gives them natural advantages to serve as ‘Living Labs’ for new technologies and approaches that can be scaled to larger areas.

The atomized, collaborative nature of 21st century innovation demands more diversity and proximity than the monoculture science parks of the 20th century could provide. These parks, typically located on the periphery of cities, lacked the necessary density and urban vibrancy to foster spontaneous interactions and collaborations that spur innovation today. Urban areas, with their inherent characteristics of density, proximity, and accessibility, are conducive to the changes in how innovation is conceived.

Since 2014, extensive empirical research combined with highly structured engagement with dozens of districts around the world has led to an evolution in our thinking about the role and relevance of districts. In 2024—ten years after the release of The Rise of Innovation Districts—Bruce Katz and Julie Wagner co-authored a new article contending that districts need to be responsive to shifting macro forces. In The Next Wave of Innovation Districts, the article emphasized the following:

“Large macro forces—the derisking of global relationships, the decarbonization of the economy, and the need to diversify talent—are transforming the role and relevance of innovation districts. These macro forces demand innovation in technology, financial products, regulatory policies, and business processes in a collaboration among universities, companies, startups, investors, skills providers, governments, and adjacent communities. This innovation imperative in turn places a high premium on innovation districts, where disparate players can come together to invent, test, and adapt a broad range of solutions across multiple dimensions, specialized sectors, and stakeholders.”

Today, innovation districts, also called innovation precincts, innovation communities, and knowledge quarters, are increasingly known as the 21st-century model of place-based innovation. GIID analysis has identified more than 150 districts worldwide in various stages of development.

Why we need innovation districts

GIID’s analysis of 23 innovation districts across ten countries reveals districts’ capabilities to work on technologically complex research needed to solve urgent societal challenges—from combating climate change and reducing rates of infectious diseases to supporting workforce development and minority entrepreneurship.

Our research also identified the extent to which innovation district actors possess the capacity to work across different disciplines and fields of science. This convergence of disciplines yields high-impact research that companies and firms rely on to develop novel practices and products of commercial and public value.

As the network of companies, small firms, and institutions grows, the physical clustering of economic actors can evolve into something far more powerful and intentional. The diversity of actors and the concentration of assets in one geographic region—if designed with intention, guided by committed leaders, and adequately financed—can become a multiplier of growth. This multiplier effect includes districts’ ability to:

Grow, attract, and retain innovative, knowledge-intensive companies that help drive economic growth;
Create new pathways to improving economic access, including skills and talent development and potentially a holistic “cradle-to-career” inclusion agenda;
Increase the economic and social impact of companies large and small, including the formation of new jobs with living wages; and
Develop and advance decarbonization solutions, including the identification of new energy sources to power districts and a growing roster of climate mitigation solutions.

Moreover, empirical evidence from the activities of more advanced, mature districts demonstrates their capacity to create new jobs and new companies, which has an outsized impact on local economies while strengthening the regional tax base. The Cortex Innovation Community, established in 2002, and Innovation Quarter established in 2001, are two cases highlighted in this article.

Cortex Innovation Community

The Cortex Innovation Community in St. Louis, Missouri, has transformed 200 acres (81 hectares) of what was formerly blighted inner-city industrial land into a successful hub for entrepreneurship, R&D commercialization, and creativity. In 2019, TEConomy Partners evaluated Cortex’s achievements over the first 17 years, spanning from its inception in 2002. The evaluation underscored the development of the Cortex Innovation Community into a dynamic regional growth hub, with the following statistics:

5,780 employees working in the district;
369 companies;
Operations generating $2.1 billion in annual regional output.

The value created in the district and its spillover effects in adjacent neighborhoods have led to the zip code in which Cortex is primarily located achieving the highest growth rate in property values (49.4%) of all the Greater St. Louis zip codes examined over the 2004‒2018 period.

Innovation Quarter

Innovation Quarter’s impact on the economy in and around Winston-Salem and Forsyth County, North Carolina, reached more than $1.66 billion in 2022, according to a recent study by TEConomy Partners. According to TEConomy’s report:

3,883 people work full-time across all of Innovation Quarter’s tenants.
Those jobs create a ripple effect, accounting for an additional 4,427 indirect or induced local and regional jobs.
The total amount invested to date in Innovation Quarter and surrounding area is $876 million.

“This economic impact study validates decades of work by a broad range of partners in reimagining Winston-Salem’s future. The development of this district has been one of the most important projects that put the City of Winston-Salem on a growth trajectory. [The economic growth] not only encourages investment within the district itself, it has also redefined the value proposition of Winston-Salem as … an ideal place to locate.”

—Mark Owens, President and CEO of Greater Winston-Salem, Inc.

These cases of two of the more advanced districts in the United States demonstrate the long-term economic benefits that innovation districts can generate to support local and regional growth. This growth did not happen organically, however. Underlying these statistics are years of decisions led by committed local leaders, active engagement by state and/or city governments, and highly strategic investments to create the right conditions for growth.

The location of innovation districts in regions

Innovation districts are creatures of their local and regional economies. Even in a globally connected world, their prosperity depends on their physical connectivity within their city-region. For districts to thrive, organizations within districts need easy access to other actors in the regional innovation ecosystem and efficient connections to domestic and global markets.

GIID conducted research to understand where districts in the Global Network are located in their respective regions.

The Rise of Innovation Districts (2014) identified three models of district based on their location in the region. GIID added another model after on-the-ground work in various districts. GIID research in 2022 expands on the earlier list by identifying new areas, often the result of new types of actors, such as government labs or other new types of anchors, leading district efforts.

GIID has validated the emergence of these general models of districts:

The anchor-plus model;
The reimagined urban area model;
The urbanized science or office park model; and
The unique-asset model.

Innovation districts are primarily found in midtown and downtown areas. Source: GIID geospatial analysis of 45 districts’ locations within the broader region, 2023.

Anchor-plus model

The anchor-plus district is primarily found in midtown and downtown areas. This model of district enjoys a dense concentration of institutional assets and amenities within an urban core. This aggregation of factors makes it a magnet for talented people and innovative firms, particularly in the biomedical and computer science fields.

The characteristic density of an anchor-plus district is further strengthened by transit access and other infrastructure investments. GIID lists 35 districts of the anchor-plus model, or more than three quarters of all districts in the GIID Global Network.

Reimagined urban area model

The reimagined urban area district is commonly found near or along historic waterfronts where industrial or warehouse districts are undergoing a transformation. Local leaders in these areas redevelop disused urban industrial land to create innovation districts, charting a new path of innovative growth.

Eight districts are of this model, or almost 20% of the innovation districts in the GIID Global Network.

Urbanized science or office park model

Located outside the city core, the urbanized science or office park district encompasses traditionally separate, single-use suburban science and office parks. Through increased population density in adjacent areas, improved connectivity, and diversification of activities such as retail and dining options, these formerly isolated geographies have evolved into a cohesive, multifunctional hub.

While only one district in the GIID Global Network fits this type, many others are connected with GIID and are seeking advice on their transformation.

Unique-asset model

Found in various areas within city-regions, unique-asset districts are locations marked by decades of significant investment, predominately led by government agencies. Examples include high-performing government R&D facilities such as energy labs, advanced manufacturing centers of excellence and sophisticated prototyping facilities.

While only one district in the GIID Global Network fits this model, similar districts are reaching out to GIID to determine how to leverage these unique assets.

Innovation districts and the pandemic

In the past decade, innovation districts have emerged as a more resilient economic model, even during challenging periods such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Unlike traditional office districts, innovation districts have thrived because of their unique combination of technologically complex and expensive innovation infrastructure, including wet and dry labs, high-performance computing facilities and advanced manufacturing hubs, a concentration of highly specialized talent, pedestrian-friendly design, and a strong emphasis on aligned support programs.

Listed below are just a few examples of the kinds of investments GIID tracked during the pandemic.

MaRS Discovery District, Toronto, Ontario: In 2020, venture capital investment in the Greater Toronto area surpassed $1 billion Canadian, with several deals reached in health tech, biotech, and AI.
Pittsburgh Innovation District, Pennsylvania, USA: Public and private actors invested millions in the district to address essential needs such as food security, housing, and health services. Additionally, they have supported small businesses impacted by the pandemic, particularly those in disadvantaged neighborhoods, to foster equitable recovery.
uCity Square, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA: Both state and federal government invested in the district’s anchor institutions, focusing on the development of vaccines.
MIND (Milano Innovation District), Italy: Government and private entities invested in the Human Technopole, a multidisciplinary research center that anchors the district.
Be’er Sheva Innovation District, Israel: A consortium led by Ben Gurion University of the Negev and Arizona State University was awarded a grant to create an energy infrastructure cybersecurity center. The university also received funding to open the first climate change school.

These examples highlight the enduring value and adaptability of innovation districts in an ever-evolving landscape. Districts’ concentrated economic activities and collaborative environments continue to drive local and regional economic growth, cementing their status as resilient and dynamic economic powerhouses and engines for social benefit.

Common characteristics of innovation districts

Across any given region, distinct entities and actors must possess the starting assets necessary to develop an innovation district. Starting assets include research institutions, such as universities and medical institutions with applied and translational research activities. These assets also include physical assets of accessible land—ideally with “strong bones,” such as walkable streets, open spaces and accessible public infrastructure. To enable R&D collaboration, accelerate knowledge exchange across diverse actors, and create places for education and training, GIID analysis demonstrates that the physical transformation of these geographies are often quite extensive. The physical remake of districts includes removing physical barriers, enhancing accessibility and altering the underlying conditions of physical density to allow a higher concentration of people to live and work in the district. Similar to the 2014 highly poetic definition of districts, GIID analysis validates how districts are indeed seeking to become “the ultimate mashup” of activities, assets and a diversity of actors.

This finding leads us to return to the observations we described in the Brookings Institution report, where innovation districts typically include three types of assets. We described economic, physical and social networking assets, which together constitute the innovation ecosystem. While these assets are commonly viewed as distinct types and financed through separate funding streams, the power of districts emerges from a vision shared across actors, sectors, and spaces.

As a starting point, innovation ecosystems requires economic, physical, and networking assets working in concert.

At GIID, research on and engagement with districts have led us to further develop the framework for transforming the three starting assets into a set of highly coordinated strategies and tactics. Districts use and deploy these strategies over time to strengthen their Unique Value Proposition. This clearly demonstrates why each district possesses distinct competitive advantages surpassing those of other innovation districts and geographies of innovation.

Key strategies include the following:

Strengthening R&D specializations: Identifying districts’ R&D strengths and niches with real specificity to highlight where they excel regionally or nationally.
Facilitating convergence: Fostering unconventional combinations of expertise from different disciplines to catalyze scientific and technological breakthroughs.
Creating quality, connected places: Leveraging physical assets to attract firms and talent, strengthen connections, and increase vibrancy.
Creating a buzzing, connected community: Establishing shared systems and orchestrated networks to foster community ties and keep people bound to these places.
Organizing for success: Providing the foundational support for all strategies. This strategy entails shifting from organic to intentional processes, including setting a vision and detailed ambitions, developing a governance structure, and orchestrating sustainable financing, including new revenue streams.

Clarity on a district’s initial strengths and capacities, which in many cases have formed with decades of prior investment, can often inform how a district will evolve. District leaders must therefore invest time in identifying these capabilities as part of the district’s Unique Value Proposition. The Value Proposition of districts are also shaped by the ambitions of district and community leaders. In our engagement with districts across 15 countries, the most commonly cited set of district ambitions are to:

Increase the critical mass of firms and talent that are aligned with the district R&D and other capabilities to solve highly complex problems;
Achieve equitable growth and play a central role in taking on social, economic, racial and gender inequities prevalent in cities and regions; and
Advance sustainability through a web of decarbonization strategies including the deployment of advanced R&D in climate and climate adaption solutions.

The size of innovation districts and its implications

The ability to realize such ambitions is also partly determined by a district’s location in its region and by regional and local accessibility. The physical size of the district also plays a role in the district’s capacity to create critical mass and develop the mix of uses necessary to attract and keep workers and residents in close proximity.

To understand the spatial story, GIID has dedicated nearly two years to analyzing geospatial information from 23 geographies across ten countries and four global regions. The maps below illustrate the distinctive nature of innovation geographies in terms of size and location.

These maps were developed at the same scale to demonstrate true differences in size. To achieve a collision effect of actors and activities, large districts are developing their activities in smaller nodes or “centers of gravity,” similar to how smaller districts advance. Our research shows that districts can in fact be too large, hindering their ability to create centers of critical mass and mixing.

GIID research determined that the average size of districts is 229 hectares (567 acres), with individual district sizes ranging from 14 to 818 hectares (34 to 2,021 acres). Districts located in midtown and downtown areas tend to be among the largest, averaging 267 hectares (660 acres).

Australia, which has the world’s second highest number of districts, after the United States, also has the geographically largest districts on average. The average of the six districts in Australia is 328 hectares (810 acres). In contrast, the eight U.S.-based districts average 221 hectares (546 acres). Many of the districts in Australia, often referred to as innovation precincts, have been defined with or by governmental entities.

In our view, the size of most districts is too large, limiting their capabilities to create the right conditions for this type of ecosystem growth, such as sufficient density, physical proximity, accessibility and highly orchestrated place-based investments that facilitate knowledge spillovers.

Another research finding indicates how district boundaries are highly porous. Porosity signifies the extent to which the district is easy to enter and access, as opposed to being blocked by barriers or walls or limited to a single road or access point. Over 90% of districts are accessible to pedestrians, cyclists, drivers, and public transit users. Pedestrians in particular benefit from this accessibility, with an average of seven continuous sidewalks per kilometer (11 pathways per mile), creating many options for people to access the district. Public transit passengers and cyclists enjoy a similar ease of access, with typically two different entry points per kilometer (three access points per mile). This high level of accessibility ensures that districts are physically integrated with the local landscape and easily accessible to a diverse range of users. In other words, districts are integrated into the physical fabric of cities rather than existing as isolated islands of research and science.

Lastly, GIID research documented the distinctiveness of each district (e.g., the varying R&D specializations, distinct physical assets and conditions and different forms of leadership organization). These findings powerfully contrasted with what united district leaders, including their efforts to achieve the “ultimate mashup,” where the economic, physical and social networking assets effectively collide in small, highly walkable spaces. Our analysis shows that most district development activity aimed at creating this ultimate mashup occurs adjacent to the district’s campus and on private or jointly owned land, benefiting from proximity to dense populations of workers and students and connectivity to applied R&D.

An interesting exception to the adjacency formula is offered by the Monash Technology Precinct, Melbourne, Victoria, which has identified the main campus of Monash University in Clayton as the first site of precinct activities. The precinct is building key elements on campus to make itself more open and accessible to companies, startups, and venture capital groups.

Monash Technology Precinct transformed its main campus land to achieve the “ultimate mashup.” Source: GIID geospatial analysis of districts’ core actors and place-based assets, 2023.

In the case of Innovation District Monterrey, in Monterrey, Mexico, Tec de Monterrey, in partnership with state and local actors, dedicated more than a decade to advancing the physical and economic transformation of a larger area of 463 hectares (1,144 acres). Tec is now developing an innovation district, a new center of gravity within this larger area, to create an engine for greater economic and equitable growth.

As these two cases illustrate, innovation districts may emerge and evolve in distinctive ways, creating a variety of pathways for growth. GIID is capturing and codifying these pathways through our research.

Key players that grow and shape innovation districts

The backbone of a successful innovation district is the fusion of ambitious leaders, often from a diverse set of organizations—institutional, corporate, philanthropic, governmental, financial, and investment. Interviews with district leaders explain how the engagement of multiple stakeholders is magnified when they develop a common agenda that is both empirically-grounded and impact-focused.

Anchor institutions such as research universities and medical hospitals are the bedrock on which innovation districts are built. These leading organizations provide a pipeline of talent and attract businesses through compelling partnership opportunities.

Actors advancing R&D

Universities and medical institutions	R&D magnets	Companies
Innovation districts currently emerging globally are adjacent to these research actors, a critical part of a district’s DNA.	R&D magnets are small organizations that perform translational R&D that affects the district’s ecosystem	Organizations that develop or apply knowledge to create or improve cutting-edge products, services, or processes can help advance R&D.

Ecosystem builders

Intermediaries	Accelerators and incubators	New kinds of anchors
Intermediaries are organizations that design and deliver collaborative efforts on ecosystem-shaping activities that enhance the performance of the district as a whole. For example, their mission may be to support the growth of startups. Others may strengthen how institutions and companies work together to commercialize research.	Accelerators and incubators are specific forms of intermediary that support startups and research into new ideas.	New kinds of anchors are actors that play a critical anchor role but move beyond the traditional definition of an anchor institution. They include local foundations, workforce development organizations, and community development corporations.

Investors

Governments	Philanthropists	Real estate developers	Other investors
Governments advance innovation districts by drawing connections between people, places, and ideas.	Individuals, local and community foundations, and other philanthropic entities may invest in innovation districts.	Developers shape the physical landscape of districts, creating attributes of complexity, density, and mixed uses and activities.	Asset-rich companies, civic entities, and financial institutions that invest at large scale in innovation districts all can contribute.

Mission-driven organizations

Mission-driven organizations are legally independent organizations whose purpose is to support the growth of the district. The most common types of organizations are not-for-profits or companies limited by guarantee.

Examples of innovation districts

More than 150 innovation districts have emerged worldwide, and GIID has the privilege of engaging with, and learning from, more than one-third of them.

The following is a list of the 45 districts participating in GIID’s latest Global Network programs (2022-2024):

16 Tech Innovation District, Indianapolis, Indiana (USA)
195 District, Providence, Rhode Island (USA)
Advanced Manufacturing Innovation District, Sheffield / Rotherham (UK)
Be’er Sheva Innovation District, Be’er Sheva (Israel)
BioDistrict New Orleans, New Orleans, Louisiana (USA)
Brampton Innovation District, Brampton, Ontario (Canada)
Buffalo Niagara Medical Campus, Buffalo, New York (USA)
Campus Klybeck, Basel (Switzerland)
Central Innovation District, Den Haag / The Hague (Netherlands)
Children’s National Research & Innovation Campus, Washington, D.C. (USA)
Cleveland Health-Tech Corridor, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
Cortex Innovation Community, St. Louis, Missouri (USA)
Distrito de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación de Bogotá-Región, Bogotá (Colombia)
Distrito de Innovación de Ñuble, Chillán (Chile)
Distrito de Innovación Medellín, Medellín (Colombia)
Gold Coast Health and Knowledge Precinct, Gold Coast, Queensland (Australia)
Haifa Innovation District, Haifa (Israel)
Halifax Innovation District, Halifax, Nova Scotia (Canada)
Innovation District Monterrey, Monterrey (Mexico)
Innovation Quarter, Winston-Salem, North Carolina (USA)
Ion District, Houston, Texas (USA)
Keystone Innovation District, Kansas City, Missouri (USA)
Kenniskwartier (Knowledge Quarter) Zuidas, Amsterdam (Netherlands)
Liverpool Innovation Precinct, Liverpool, New South Wales (Australia)
Lot Fourteen, Adelaide, South Australia (Australia)
Lund Innovation District, Lund (Sweden)
Malmö Startup District, Malmö (Sweden)
Melbourne Innovation Districts (City North), Melbourne, Victoria (Australia)
Innovation District (TBA), Sunnyvale, California (USA)
Monash Technology Precinct, Melbourne, Victoria (Australia)
Nagaoka City Innovation District, Nagaoka (Japan)
Norfolk Innovation Corridor, Norfolk, Virginia (USA)
Oak Ridge Corridor Innovation District, Knoxville, Tennessee (USA)
Oklahoma City Innovation District, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (USA)
Oslo Science City, Oslo (Norway)
Paju Medical Cluster, Paju City (South Korea)
Phoenix Bioscience Core, Phoenix, Arizona (USA)
Pittsburgh Innovation District, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (USA)
Randwick Health & Innovation Precinct, Sydney, New South Wales (Australia)
Tech Central, Sydney, New South Wales (Australia)
The LinQ, Mansfield, Texas (USA)
Tonsley Innovation District, Adelaide, South Australia (Australia)
UNSW Launch, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory (Australia)
Utah Tech Innovation District, St. George, Utah (USA)
Westmead Health and Innovation District, Sydney, New South Wales (Australia)

What are not innovation districts

Innovation districts are the antithesis of monolithic science parks and science corridors. The latter—typically automobile-dominated innovation geographies—are often difficult to access and lack a diverse range of activities and community-based support. In contrast, our data indicate that, while many districts are currently undergoing a physical transformation to be more integrated and mixed, many still require additional investment to achieve the level of density of actors and assets to create the desired level of critical mass.

Districts are also not “real estate plays”—investments commonly made by traditional real estate developers seeking short-term investment returns with little to no focus on R&D activities that underpin true districts. Contrary to real estate plays, districts are inherently designed to advance long-term, innovation-led growth that stimulate economic growth across knowledge-intensive and complementary service sectors.

With this perspective, the following are place-based models that don’t qualify as innovation districts:

Office parks;
Traditional science or technology parks; and
Single buildings.

Outlined below are some key differences between office parks, traditional science parks, and innovation districts. Although some science parks are striving to become more integrated and holistic, the vast majority still adhere to traditional models. Our research indicates that each of the models described below falls on a spectrum, and that there are cases in which, for example, science parks include other assets and advantages, making them more similar to innovation districts.

	Office parks	Science parks	Innovation districts
Boundary A boundary is a geographic feature that helps define where innovation-rich and community actors are forging a collective identity and ambition to become a multiplier of growth. A boundary defines a geography where the combined assets, actors, and attributes are amplified for innovation, community, and economic impact.	✅ Boundary presence Office parks generally have a well-defined boundary. They’re typically designed as stand-alone developments with limited access points. ● Porosity The boundary of an office park is often marked by perimeter roads or fences.	✅ Boundary presence Science parks typically have a defined boundary within designated areas that are often part of larger, master-planned developments. ● Porosity The boundary of a science park is often marked by perimeter roads or fences.	✅ Boundary presence Innovation districts generally have a well-defined boundary that is not fixed and constrained but can change in response to market changes and new intentions. ● Porosity The boundary of an innovation district is fluid and integrated with the surrounding urban fabric.
Building blocks Building blocks are a specific set of actors and place-based assets that collectively create an environment conducive to innovation, fostering synergy among diverse individuals and a supportive built environment and advanced infrastructure.	● Range of actors Office parks primarily include tenants that are professional service firms and some technology companies, such as software. There are very few—if any—actors that undertake R&D activities. ● Built environment The primary emphasis of office parks is on traditional office spaces. Thus, office parks are characterized by low- to midrise office buildings with ample parking arranged in a campus like setting. ● Connectivity and accessibility Office parks are often located in suburban areas, primarily accessible by car. Public transit options are generally limited.	✅ Range of actors Science parks include a mix of high-tech firms, research institutions, and sometimes academic actors. ✅ Built environment The primary emphasis of science parks is on workspaces and innovation spaces. These spaces may include specialized facilities such as labs and research centers. ✅ Connectivity and accessibility Science parks typically are located near universities or research hubs, with moderate access to public transit. Car travel is still common, but there may be shuttle services.	✅ Range of actors Innovation districts feature a diverse range of actors, including universities and medical institutions, startups, established firms, various types of organizations, and local residents. ✅ Built environment Innovation districts primarily emphasize the mixed use of spaces. Innovation districts may exhibit a mix of new and repurposed buildings, including offices, labs, housing, and cultural venues. They strive for flexibility and adaptability in design to support various activities. ✅ Connectivity and accessibility Innovation districts are well integrated with urban public transit systems, including buses, trains, and bike-sharing options. They’re designed for walkability and ease of access.
Basic components Basic components comprise a range of attributes that embrace the essence of urbanism. These components play a crucial role in seamlessly integrating innovation geographies with their surrounding landscapes while providing the services that communities need. By facilitating continuous activity and interaction, they contribute to the creation of a vibrant environment that thrives 24/7.	● Work Office parks are characterized by a limited presence of R&D actors. R&D activities are minimal and often focused on product development rather than on groundbreaking research. ● Live Office parks typically lack residential options; employees commute from other areas. ● Play and learn Office parks usually offer some basic amenities, such as cafeterias and fitness centers; a few have educational facilities. ✅ Breathe Office parks many feature landscaped grounds and green spaces for aesthetic appeal and employee relaxation.	✅ Work Science parks include a diverse range of R&D actors. R&D activities range from basic research to applied research and product development. ✅ Live Science parks may have some limited residential facilities. They may offer housing for researchers or students. ● Play and learn Science parks usually include some amenities, such as conference centers and dining options, occasionally limited schooling options. ● Breathe Science parks may include parks and green spaces to promote a pleasant working environment.	✅ Work Innovation districts are characterized by a rich ecosystem of R&D actors and talent located in close proximity to foster partnerships and transform ideas into market-ready products, processes, and services. ✅ Live Innovation districts typically integrate various residential options, including affordable housing, market-rate apartments, and live-work spaces. ✅ Play and learn Innovation districts are characterized by extensive amenities, including schools, health care facilities, retail establishments, and entertainment and cultural venues. They’re designed to serve workers, students. and residents. ✅ Breathe Innovation districts emphasize green infrastructure and spaces, including parks, green roofs, and community gardens. They’re designed to enhance urban sustainability and livability.
Mixing Mixing is a strategy that entails productively leveraging the key assets located in physical proximity to one another. Walkable neighborhoods where housing, work, and amenities are intermixed represent the optimal physical platform for different actors and sectors to work horizontally and make transformative innovation happen.	● Integrated spaces Office parks offer limited mixing that is primarily focused on business activities. ● Ecosystem building Ecosystem building is not necessary for office parks to thrive as companies seek to build their own advantages.	✅ Integrated spaces Science parks usually offer some mix of specialized spaces designed to support R&D and innovation activities. These spaces may include labs, research centers, technology incubators, and collaboration zones. ✅ Ecosystem building Collaboration between academia and industry is common. Yet the physical environment (often spread out) poses challenges to fostering a collaborative environment.	✅ Integrated spaces Innovation districts feature a high degree of mixing. The mixing Is designed to foster a vibrant, integrated community and to support diverse uses and interactions. ✅ Ecosystem building Buildings, open spaces, programs, and key actors are intentionally designed to strengthen the district’s ecosystem as it builds a collaborative agenda.

Is Silicon Valley an innovation district?

Some have asked whether Silicon Valley is an innovation district. While districts are commonly the size of a neighborhood, they are not the size of a city or a region. Silicon Valley is regional in scale, spanning numerous cities and towns in California. Silicon Valley is also not a compact, urban model, as it is predominantly a low-density, auto-dominated region requiring people to travel long distances by car.

In contrast, innovation districts are physically compact, are accessible by most means of transport (including walking), and offer mixed-use housing, office, and retail spaces.

The next wave of innovation districts

The next wave of innovation districts is gathering momentum, a reflection of the structural changes underway in the global economy. Districts are responding to fast-changing and highly volatile macro forces and the need to derisk, decarbonize, and diversify talent.

Adapted from “The Next Wave of Innovation Districts,” by Bruce Katz and Julie Wagner

The next wave of innovation districts is distinctive, for multiple reasons:

The sectors entering this innovation geography extend beyond the traditional life sciences sectors to include advanced manufacturing for military and civilian purposes.
A deeper emphasis on decarbonization is driving the use of basic and applied R&D to invent new clean technology products and solutions, as well as the reorganization of energy generation and distribution within districts to meet crucial carbon targets.
The stronger emphasis on the diversification of talent means the upskilling of workers for new production activities and a broader set of mechanisms to drive inclusive innovation to address long-standing inequities.
The newer districts are attracting a broader group of stakeholders, including manufacturing companies, utilities, university industrial design and engineering departments, and hard-tech startups.
Districts are ultimately looking to engage a wider base of investors to support clean tech, med tech, defense tech, and other forms of innovation, given the varying resources and capitalization traditions involved.

At the same time, as we enter an era of unprecedented technological progress and global interconnectedness, a new paradigm is emerging: constellations of innovation districts. Many regions now boast multiple innovation districts or similar hubs of innovative activity, reflecting the increasing centrality of learning, discovery, and innovation in our rapidly evolving world. By cultivating constellations of innovation ecosystems, regions can amplify their collective impact, positioning themselves at the forefront of technological and economic change. The interaction between various regional innovation ecosystems can enhance overall innovation capacity, leading to a dynamic, resilient, and forward-looking metropolitan economy.

GIID is analyzing this phenomenon, working with cities and regions to help them differentiate these geographies given their unique R&D capabilities, emerging technologies and diversifying talent base.

To conclude, the next wave of innovation districts is in its early formation, but these districts will be fast learners, able to pivot quickly in response to new trends and powerful imperatives. The world is a complicated place and will only become more vexing. Districts represent one rational response—at the hyperlocal level—to take on the challenges of our times.

Topics

Innovation Districts

What are Innovation Districts?