What is ID2.0 and how can innovation districts become inclusive growth flagships?

David Marlow
19 hours ago
6 min read

Earlier this year, LED Confidential discussed Innovation Districts with Emma Frost, Chair of the UK Innovation Districts Group (UKIDG). That episode made the case for innovation districts (IDs) as an exemplary combination of innovation hub and urban regeneration intervention and looked at the ingredients for their success.

modern innovation district with mixed-use buildings, green spaces, walkable streets, and diverse groups of people collaborating in an urban setting

We return to this theme for our final international episode of the year with Dr Michael Glass of University of Pittsburgh. Michael has been a long-term collaborator with David on their Improving Inclusive Innovation Outcomes (i3o) international programme. This focuses specifically on the contribution of IDs to place-based inclusive growth. The results of the initial phases of the programme are due to be published in the New Year in a Regional Studies Association Policy Expo Book “Improving inclusive innovation outcomes: policy insights from post-industrial and post-conflict cities”.

LEDC listeners get an early preview of the book’s main recommendations. David, Michael, and their co-authors propose an ID2.0 model which places inclusion-rich outcomes alongside innovation and urban renewal goals in the design and development of IDs, both existing and proposed.

This blog discusses five big ticket issues surfaced in conversation with Michael that merit further thinking and development as places seek inclusive growth results from investments in IDs. Indeed, the i3o approach and toolkit may have application with some adaptation in both other Science, Technology, Research and Innovation (STRI) programmes and in other types of area-based initiatives.

Eschew ‘trickle down’ as an approach to delivering inclusive growth from innovation districts

The genesis of the i3o programme lies in the considerable evidence that, without explicit inclusion-oriented intervention strategies, IDs act as powerful economic and investment concentrators that accelerate existing processes of uneven development. They cluster high-value, knowledge-intensive jobs (e.g. R&D, FinTech, Life Sciences) that heavily reward specific types of businesses, knowledge-based institutions like universities, and labour market sectors with specific scarce skills.

The spatial focus of IDs can deliver property development and value capture that drives gentrification and displacement in existing and neighbouring communities. Many types of ID operations and occupiers can create enclave-type economies and neighbourhoods with an us-and-them polarisation which alienates large segments of local communities from any ID success.

LED and placemaking practitioners increasingly recognise these trends. Lazy reliance on ‘trickle down’ will typically not compensate for them. The good news is that i3o in general, and the ID2.0 framework in particular, can help us proactively manage and mitigate these issues and externalities.

What are the key i3o findings and recommendations emerging from them?

The i3o programme has conducted diagnostic and development exercises over 2022-25 in collaboration with the IDs and cities of Newcastle and Belfast in the UK, Medellin in Colombia and Pittsburgh in the US. Using a light touch, flexible but consistent methodological approach and toolkit, i3o has established that cities and their IDs can agree a relevant local definition of ‘inclusive innovation’. This can be used to identify actionable inclusion-rich priorities in their IDs. The major differences in context and culture across the four cities and in their IDs gives i3o confidence that any place can decide to apply inclusive innovation purposefulness in the way they develop their IDs.

The three key parameters of inclusive innovation purposefulness encompass ID leadership and management, community engagement and placemaking, and strategic alignment and territorial equity. The ID2.0 framework presented in the book suggests how these can inform ID policy and practice if places wish to increase the inclusive growth impact of and outcomes from their IDs.

What is the ID2.0 framework and how does it differ from orthodox ID1.0 models?

Essentially the ID2.0 framework provides a checklist of considerations ID and place leadership teams can use to diagnose and develop the three parameters of purposefulness.

ID leadership and management should seek to agree key inclusive innovation goals, and then business plan and performance manage progress towards them. Local communities should have some agency in and access to ‘their’ local ID – with its design being as part of the neighbourhood and the city rather than an enclave separate from the urban fabric. Externality risks like gentrification and displacement should be recognised and mitigated where possible.

IDs should be willing to agree specific contributions to relevant city and regional strategies and take some responsibility for delivery of them. They should also be aware and manage the impact that the concentration of investment and economic activity in the ID has on more distant communities and businesses and seek win-win outcomes wherever feasible.

In summary, an ID2.0 gives much more weight to looking outwards to its impacts on communities, neighbourhoods and the city region as a whole. ID1.0 tended to look inwards to creating the type of environment that attracted high value tenants, activities and investors.

Using the i3o methodology and toolkit for other inclusive growth challenges

Michael and David are keen to adapt the methodology and toolkit for other inclusive growth policy development exercises. The methodology is a specific type of international academic-policy exchange. A group of cities, IDs, and universities have collaborated to test an approach to a policy challenge – in this case ‘how to deliver inclusion-rich IDs.’ They have applied a consistent methodology and toolkit to increase the international knowledge exchange. The inclusion of core partners from each place helps embed enduring local ownership and understanding of the findings.

The approach, methodology and toolkits might be adaptable for other types of innovation investments and for any area-based initiative that introduces new economic roles and functions into local economies and labour markets.

Not a silver bullet…

David and Mike fully recognise that this approach is very much work in progress. Key areas for further development include how in practice to identify and engage priority communities. Most critically, inclusion priorities have to be balanced against the equally valid goals of national and global investors, and of the individual participating institutions themselves. One of the key challenges for IDs is staying true to their long-term vision and values in the face of short-term financial, property and even research opportunism.

Building a resilient ‘coalition of the willing’ is the key to embedding inclusive innovation in your emergent ID or in evolving the character of a mature more established district.

Concluding remarks

This conversation with Michael has given us a vital, forward-looking preview of the ID2.0 framework and the core findings of the i3o programme. Innovation districts are powerful strategic flagships of economic change, but without deliberate, inclusion-rich strategies, they risk accelerating the very uneven development and polarisation that place makers and economic development professionals are struggling to solve.

Please have a look at the book when it comes out in the New Year. We shall post a link to it here. Is the ID2.0 concept helpful for those of you engaging with your Innovation District if you host one, or for those of you considering establishing a new one? Do give us your feedback. The i30 programme has an aim to evolve into a community of practice, and it would be great to have LED Confidential listeners as contributors to this collaboration.