The creative digital city of Guadalajara, Mexico. Disruption of a traditional grid

1 Introduction

The disruption of a traditional grid in the context of Guadalajara's Digital Creative City (DCC) is proposed here as a multi-dimensional departure from the city's 20th-century paradigms. Rather than a purely physical modification of the street layout, this disruption signifies a break from the traditional economic grid of electronics manufacturing toward a high-value knowledge economy focused on digital design and audiovisual production. Simultaneously, it represents the dismantling of the traditional governance grid—characterized by rigid, vertical bureaucratic silos—in favor of an adaptive “project-based” governance model designed to manage the inherent uncertainties of innovation. Spatially and socially, this process aims to revitalize the traditional urban grid of the historic center by transforming underutilized brownfields into a dense “live-work-play” ecosystem. However, as the analysis demonstrates, this disruption also creates a significant gap between the theoretical “Smart City” model and the existing social fabric, as the project has yet to successfully integrate original residents into its new technological and residential framework.

While prior literature (Arellano Ríos, 2019; Navarrete Ulloa, 2018) established the foundational sociopolitical and administrative critiques of the Digital Creative City (DCC), this manuscript addresses a significant knowledge gap regarding the project's long-term evolution and its alignment with modern innovation district theory following the 2019 institutional restructuring. Existing studies largely focus on the project's inception and early failures; however, there is a lack of analysis concerning the transition to the 2019 state-controlled agency model and the subsequent 2022 Distrito Creativo Guadalajara rebranding. Furthermore, there is a gap between the DCC's practical outcomes as of 2025–2026 and the “mainstream literature” on global innovation districts, leaving it unanswered whether the project's current “pragmatic” real-estate focus constitutes a successful adaptation or a further deviation from international standards.

The original scientific contribution of this study is threefold; 1) It provides updated longitudinal coverage through 2026, documenting the current construction status of the creative complexes and the specific failure of the project to reverse the population decline in the district; 2) It introduces new empirical data from interviews with DCC employees and visitors, revealing a critical disconnect: the creative class currently working in the towers rejects the live-work-play model due to persistent urban insecurity, choosing instead to reside in other parts of the city. Finally, the manuscript's most significant contribution is the application of a new comparative framework (summarized in Table 1) that systematically evaluates the DCC's reality against global theoretical pillars —Urban design, location, governance, social impact, and institutions— concluding that while the project remains architecturally congruent, it fundamentally fails in the critical dimensions of transparent governance and social equity.

Table 1. The table shows the congruence or incongruence between the DCC project and mainstream literature across dimensions as a result of the methodological triangulation process, and identifies the barriers and enablers found.

2 Innovation districts and their governance

Innovation districts are planned economic ecosystems and a place-based strategy to drive regional economic advancement through innovation and entrepreneurial activity (Anderson, 2026). They are recognized as geographically defined urban areas where anchor institutions and leading companies cluster and connect with startups, incubators, and accelerators (Kalliomäki et al., 2024; Rapetti et al., 2023). Their nature is not only physical but also social, depending on the capacity for connection and knowledge exchange among various actors (Anderson, 2026), which is why they are proposed and developed as nerve centers or “hot spots” of a metropolis.

Urban and economic regeneration is the main objective of creating innovation districts, which is why it often becomes an initiative championed by governments to bring their own political projects to life.

The creation of these districts responds to the growing importance of the “economy of knowledge”, an approach that integrates four pillars of development that must grow together for the city to be competitive: economic, sociocultural, urban environmental, and governance. High-tech sectors, innovation, and design centers (I&D), and innovation clusters are the economic catalysts for the ecosystem. The sociocultural pillar aims to develop a focus on human capital, knowledge workers, and community services in the districts. Urban and environmental development address issues such as physical infrastructure, green spaces, and digital connectivity. Governance focuses on the public and private groups that manage transformation and citizen participation.

Together, these pillars set the conditions for the ecosystem to become a “creative field” where interrelationships stimulate and channel individual expressions of creativity. To achieve this, relational proximity is required: promoting face-to-face encounters and informal networks that facilitate the flow of tacit information, which is difficult in remote online encounters. However, there must also be a capacity for connection through deliberate, continuous processes of interaction, which challenges the assumption that collaboration arises spontaneously from physical proximity. In addition, analogous examples demonstrate the need for interdependent chains of services, industry, innovation, talent, and financing.

Another justification for the creation of districts is the desire for cities to transform underutilized neighborhoods or degraded industrial areas into spatial concentrations of knowledge-intensive activities, serving as urban laboratories where technology sectors can co-locate to accelerate competitiveness (Clancy et al., 2025; Rapetti et al., 2023) and generate ecosystems that enable innovation.

Some of these districts emerge in response to successive industrial closures or the obsolescence of old production centers (brownfields), with the aim of stabilizing the community and diversifying industry (Anderson, 2026; Kalliomäki et al., 2024). The goal of these districts is to revitalize neighborhoods that lack investment opportunities for economic development, and their logic is based on projects that connect housing, commerce, and entertainment in the urban core (Morales et al., 2025).

In a globalized world, cities compete to attract foreign investment and the so-called “creative class” (professionals, scientists, and artists) (Clancy et al., 2025; Scott, 2006). The rationale is that a vibrant urban environment, with a high quality of life and amenities, is a magnet for skilled human talent, which is the engine of modern innovation (Costa et al., 2008; Rapetti et al., 2023).

Another argument used by local and national governments is that districts have the potential to address spatial inequalities. To achieve this, governments aim to invest in innovation infrastructure to generate shared benefits, such as creating quality jobs for local populations and empowering marginalized communities by co-creating technologies that address local social challenges (Morales et al., 2025).

From an urban planning perspective, these districts are justified as strategic urban projects that go beyond the traditional model of administrative silos (Kalliomäki et al., 2024), facilitating a ready-to-share experience and findings. To achieve this, they seek a “union between form and function”, in which the design of the physical space (density, accessibility, mixed-use) is deliberately aligned with the city's economic and social development objectives.

Various authors develop the concept of innovation districts based on three main areas of analysis (Clancy et al., 2025): 1) public policy, 2) place, and 3) actors. From a public policy perspective, specific policies and the strategic direction taken by cities are examined, including tax incentives and the administrative structures that govern them. The place approach refers to spatial dimensions and infrastructure, as districts must be compact, accessible, and mixed-use (housing, offices, and shops) to promote a “live-work-play” environment. In addition, the actor approach usually refers to strategic institutional actors, such as universities, large companies, and the government itself, but it is also important to secure support from grassroots actors/users, such as entrepreneurs, creatives, and residents.

The governance of innovation districts is presented as a critical and strategic dimension that has evolved from hierarchical control models to complex collaborative ecosystems (Rapetti et al., 2023; Zhou et al., 2025). Within this range of possibilities, traditional governance frameworks have been identified, such as the triple helix model, which involves collaboration among government, universities, and industry (Anderson, 2026; Rapetti et al., 2023). In some cases, reference is even made to quadruple and quintuple helix models; the former incorporate civil society and the media in pursuit of the democratization of knowledge and culture, and the latter add the natural environment as a driver of innovation, linking the district's success to socio-ecological sustainability (Anderson, 2026; Clancy et al., 2025; Fernandez and Bentley, 2022). However, in recent examples, a shift has been observed from rigid structures to adaptive governance models that allow for flexible responses to technological or market changes (Zhou et al., 2025), which has contributed to their survival in the face of adversities arising from the changes cities are facing.

Another trend detected is toward a “project logic” that presumes greater flexibility, rather than traditional planning based on functionalist tools such as zoning. Project governance turns the city into an active agent that mobilizes society, rather than being a mere container for a plan. The consideration of a meta-project approach involves a set of key ideas and principles of action that are updated incrementally, enabling the management of the uncertainty inherent to innovation itself. Projects could promote coordination among actors who demand autonomy, reducing the central and authoritarian role of government and favoring dynamism and the pluralization of actors (Navarrete Ulloa, 2018).

Innovation districts can also be part of a project approach when considered as planned ecosystems that promote effective governance, one that depends not only on physical proximity but also on the deliberate creation of connective capacity (Anderson, 2026). When these occur in a planned manner, it enables intentional interaction is enabled, promoting the formation of networks among knowledge workers. In these districts, it is essential to articulate anchor institutions, such as universities and large companies, with grassroots actors, such as startups, creatives, and local residents (Clancy et al., 2025). However, coordination between institutions and the formulation of public policies that cross traditional administrative silos are required in order to achieve “synchronization” of interventions.

In the governance of innovation districts, there have also been “backbone” command structures with locally accountable leadership that is accountable to the local community, not just to investors or political elites (Morales et al., 2025). Organizations such as “Ruta N” in Medellín and “NGPD” in Porto Digital stand out for their management of shared knowledge and facilitation of collective decision-making (Morales et al., 2025). District management must be independent of political cycles; in other words, the continuity of a long-term vision must be ensured (Drucker and Kayanan, 2024). This is especially true in weak or recent democracies, such as those in Latin American countries.

Innovation districts should manage the inherent tension between economic development and social equity, as gentrification often arises. For this reason, reproducing elite enclaves that exclude the social base or expel the original residents should be avoided (Kayanan, 2022; Navarrete Ulloa, 2018). The location strategies for these districts must involve disadvantaged communities in defining priorities and ensure that benefits such as jobs and infrastructure are distributed equitably. When developing an innovation district project, it is necessary to consider the enclave's metropolitan region of the enclave, as the project's design must reflect territorial equity (Morales et al., 2025) and ensure no local governments are left behind.

The importance of generating and ensuring transparency in public resources allocated to innovation districts is recognized, and it is therefore recommended that effectiveness be measured by the budget allocated, the competence of the management team, and the availability of open data to promote transparency (Rapetti et al., 2023). Additionally, the use of digital tools is recommended to monitor the impact of urban transformation and facilitate more responsive and adaptive governance (Clancy et al., 2025).

3 Methodology

The Digital Creative City (DCC) is located at the intersection of digitization, creative industries, and urban dynamics. This article presents an example on how digitization redefines production and design processes. An exploratory case study approach is adopted, justified by the need to analyze a complex contemporary phenomenon (DCC) within its real-world context, where the boundaries between the phenomenon and the context are not clearly defined.

Guadalajara's DCC has been a project aimed at positioning the city as a global hub for audiovisual production and digital services. It is recognized as an exercise in place branding and neo-localism, so the article directly explores the global positioning strategy and the creation of the “Distrito Creativo Guadalajara” trademark, which attempts to consolidate the city as the “Technological Capital of Mexico”.

It also considers how it aims to attract the “creative class” (professionals, scientists, and artists) and digital nomads between the ages of 26 and 45 as drivers of modern innovation in the district and analyzes the tension between the adoption of global urban models (such as Smart Cities and innovation districts) and their limited ability to adapt to the local needs and realities of Guadalajara.

In addition, it notes a disruption of traditional value chains by describing the migration from a declining historic downtown area to a hub for software, video game, and animation creation, reflecting the reconfiguration of traditional economic sectors toward knowledge- and technology-based industries.

In its narrative, the work delves into critical implementation gaps, such as gentrification, the displacement of original inhabitants, and the lack of community integration, and notes the possible adverse effects of these processes.

In order to understand the evolution of the innovation district and its scope, the aim is to develop an assessment of the DCC, including its physical characteristics and its influence on stakeholders. The analysis covers dimensions such as areas and constructed square meters, and, above all, how it has been received by both its users and its neighbors. In addition, the aim is to describe the origins and growth over time, as well as the cycle of a project like this in one of the most important cities in Latin America and the third-most populous in Mexico (Guadalajara). Finally, the aim is to compare the DCC governance model with analogous models reported in the literature and with available theories.

To achieve this, a theoretical framework based on international and regional mainstream literature has been developed, which enables an understanding of the concept of innovation districts through the experience of these districts in other cities, leading to reflection and their insertion into the global context.

Secondly, a state-of-the-art review was conducted using academic and technical publications that refer to the specific project from its inception through each publication's date.

As a third step, the empirical data collection included a cross-verification of sources: 1) Systematic document analysis, 2) semi-structured interviews, and 3) non participatory observation. A review was conducted of official documents since its creation in 2011 to the end of 2025, including technical reports, advertising brochures, and newspaper articles that provide insight into the version of the State, the main driver of the project, which has taken control of it, resulting in very little participation from other stakeholders. This was evident from conversations with the DCC workers, and neighbors interviewed, whose insights were incorporated into the article's narrative. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in the first half of 2025 with two DCC employees and two residents living in the immediate vicinity to gather nuanced insights on governance and quality of life. It should be noted that these interviews serve a qualitative purpose of validation and field assessment, not statistical representativeness. The interviewed employees had varying lengths of service at the DCC in a time range since the main office building opened, until recent times. The residents were selected based on their proximity to the main building: the first lived on one of the blocks adjacent to the DCC, and the second lived more than two blocks away. The interviews were conducted at the DDC offices and at the residents' homes.

The four interviews were not intended to be statistically representative but rather served specific qualitative objectives: validation of findings and context; they were conceived as supplementary material, not primary evidence. They became an on-the-ground diagnostic tool for measuring the impact of the governance restructuring and the ecosystem's resilience, without constituting the core of the research's quantitative or documentary evidence.

The interview protocol for employees was architected around three interconnected thematic pillars that escalate from immediate occupational contexts to systemic institutional stability. First, questions probe the Professional Environment and Infrastructure, examining daily operational realities within the DCC and the efficacy of academic-industry partnerships in positioning Guadalajara as a global hub. Second, the instrument investigated Quality of Life and Safety, scrutinizing the viability of the “live-work-play” paradigm through residential proximity, urban amenity adequacy, and—critically—perceived security after dark. Third, it addresses Governance & Growth, exploring stakeholder trust following the administrative shift from a civil association to a state agency, as well as the ecosystem impacts of construction delays and anchor-tenant volatility. As a semi-structured interview, the template prioritized flexibility, allowing probing of emergent themes and capturing nuanced stakeholder experiences rather than merely collecting standardized data.

The underlying objectives of these inquiries were to translate qualitative stakeholder experiences into actionable intelligence to inform district evolution. Immediate goals included evaluating whether physical infrastructure and industry-academia linkages genuinely bolster productivity; testing the “live-work-play” model's success in retaining resident families; and assessing safety perceptions that may inhibit 24/7 community vitality. Beyond operational metrics, the interviews sought to measure the impact of governance restructuring on institutional trust and transparency, and to diagnose ecosystem resilience to shocks such as tenant departures or development stalls. Ultimately, these diagnostics aimed to coalesce to inform policy and management, providing ground-level insights to refine urban planning, strengthen public-private partnerships, and guide strategic marketing—ensuring the district's development remains responsive to the unintended consequences and evolving needs of its community.

The semi-structured interview template for neighbors residing in the surroundings of Park Morelos was organized around three thematic pillars to investigate the multifaceted impacts of Guadalajara's Digital Creative City (DCC) revitalization project. The questions were formulated to probe specific areas of concern: community integration and displacement, focusing on demographic shifts and housing expectations; urban transformation, examining changes to public spaces and access to essential services; and governance and participation, which scrutinizes citizen involvement in decision-making and historical trust issues. This semi-structured approach ensures a comprehensive exploration of the social, economic, and political dimensions of the neighborhood's transformation.

The intended goals of gathering these responses center on critically evaluating the gap between urban development objectives and residents' actual experiences. By analyzing the feedback, the study aims to assess risks of gentrification and social exclusion, measure tangible quality-of-life improvements, and critique the inclusivity of the governance model. Ultimately, the responses seek to uncover gaps in spatial justice and community trust to inform policy recommendations to guide more equitable and participatory urban development strategies that prioritize social equity over the creation of elite enclaves.

The interviews were not recorded at the request of the workers and neighbors, so it was only possible to take notes, which have been incorporated into the manuscript's narrative. All participants in this study provided documented verbal informed consent, with explicit assurances that participation was entirely voluntary and could be withdrawn at any time. Furthermore, the researcher implemented rigorous confidentiality protocols to ensure the anonymity and privacy of all interview participants, maintaining strict data protection standards throughout the research process and in all subsequent dissemination of findings. In addition, observations were conducted outside the DCC buildings and on the streets surrounding the complex. The non-participant observation took place over the course of a week. Each day began at the start of the workday and ended at the close of business, with the aim of understanding the participants' behavior and, where applicable, their interactions with neighbors during workdays. This approach made it possible to understand the relationship between the creative district's activities and its context.

The publications were comprehensively selected from official documents, including some mentioned in the press; therefore, each available publication was included.

Finally, the findings are revisited in the conclusions, which reflect on the project's present and future, as well as the vicissitudes it has faced, with an emphasis on its governance.

4 The digital creative city in Guadalajara (DCC). Analysis of urban transformation and technological innovation

The genesis of the Digital Creative City dates back to 2009, when it was originally conceived as an initiative of the federal agency ProMéxico (Navarrete Ulloa, 2018; SEPLAN, 2022). The federal government's primary objective was to position Mexico as a strategic player in the global audiovisual content and digital services industry by creating a technological and audiovisual production hub based on a smart city prototype (Arellano Ríos, 2019; SEPLAN, 2022).

To substantiate the project's viability, exhaustive studies were conducted on successful creative hubs in California, the United Kingdom, France, Seoul, and Singapore (Navarrete Ulloa, 2018). In 2010, a partnership was formalized with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) to evaluate various sites in Mexico with the necessary infrastructure and talent (SEPLAN, 2022). After a national competition involving cities such as Monterrey, Puebla, Tijuana, and Querétaro, Guadalajara was selected in 2011 as the official headquarters of a national Digital Creative City (Arellano Ríos, 2019; CCD and ADICyDdeJ, 2023; Navarrete Ulloa, 2018).

The various actors from both the government and the private sector cite the following as determining factors in the choice of Guadalajara: In November 2012, the Master Plan was presented, developed by an international consortium led by architect Carlo Ratti of the MIT Senseable City Lab, together with firms such as Accenture, Arup, and Fundación Metrópoli (CCD and ADICyDdeJ, 2023; Navarrete Ulloa, 2018). This plan outlined urban, social, and industrial measures to transform 43 hectares in the heart of the city into a global hub of innovation (SEPLAN, 2022).

• (a) The existence of a solid industrial base, as Guadalajara had three decades of experience in the electronics and software industry fundamental competencies (Navarrete Ulloa, 2018); even the state government recognized itself as the Mexican “Silicon Valley”.
• (b) The Mexican and regional identity, as the city's great historical and cultural legacy was taken into account, characterized by a combination of Mexican traditions with a vision of modernity and avant-garde (CCD and ADICyDdeJ, 2023; SEPLAN, 2022).
• (c) Creative potential, represented by recognized local talent in the areas of animation and digital media (CCD and ADICyDdeJ, 2023), which has led many Jalisco residents to join creative teams in both the software industry and film animation.
• (d) The availability of land, particularly in the metropolitan center, which had been losing inhabitants since 1990. The area surrounding Morelos Park, in the Historic Center, offered properties that the city council already owned after the failed project for the 2011 Pan American Games (Arellano Ríos, 2019; CCD and ADICyDdeJ, 2023; Navarrete Ulloa, 2018), a facility that the city also proposed to revitalize the area, but which ended up far from the center of Guadalajara, in the neighboring municipality of Zapopan, leaving empty lots in the vicinity of the park.

The project was designed under the “complex city” model, aiming to achieve harmony among territory, mobility, energy, housing, and the environment. It can be said to have followed recommendations for good practice drawn from similar examples. The strategic objectives established in the DCC Institutional Program were these (CCD and ADICyDdeJ, 2023): With regard to its physical structure, the Master Plan proposed an intervention strategy based on a “mosaic” of seven urban renewal axes (CCD and ADICyDdeJ, 2023): 1) the Digital Hub, which is the main node, located around Morelos Park (one of the oldest in Guadalajara), where the DCC is concentrated and whose design is based on a mixed structure that aims to create a compact and dense neighborhood that integrates residential use with productive activities, both traditional (commerce and services) and technological (software and communication), as well as anchor projects that include the first creative complex—towers A, B, and C, as well as the Jalisco Technological University (UTJ) and the Open Innovation Platform (Plai), a kind of startup incubator; 2) the design axes expressed in corridors with various land uses dedicated to design, with the idea that they be linked to digital production; 3) the monumental axis that already existed before the DCC project and where iconic buildings of the city are located, such as the cathedral, the Degollado theater, and the government palace; 4) the Alcalde axis, which has already undergone a renovation that has recovered a highly trafficked avenue for motor vehicles and converted it into a pedestrian path that is intended to serve as one of the main access points to the DCC; 5) The eco-boulevard Independencia, an urban corridor that is to be reinforced with green infrastructure, including the renovation of a park covering more than two hectares (Morelos Park); 6) The health axis, which includes existing federal and state health facilities, serves to diversify uses in line with the “complex city” model; and 7) the La Perla – San Juan de Dios eco-city, which includes two traditional neighborhoods in the city where interventions for urban and social regeneration are planned, seeking to reverse depopulation through the reuse of spaces.

• (a) Global Positioning: Establish Guadalajara as the main hub of Spanish-speaking digital creative production and as one of the top 10 internationally.
• (b) Urban Renewal: Revitalize the Historic Center through a compact and dense mixed-use neighborhood structure that facilitates the integration of housing with productive and technological activities.
• (c) Talent Development: Bring together industry (film, video games, animation) and the education sector to generate high-value-added jobs, in a virtuous relationship that has been successful in other districts around the world.
• (d) Sustainability: Implement integrated urban systems certified as Sustainable Comprehensive Urban Development (DUIS), a certification promoted by the Mexican federal government to promote sustainable urbanism in large urban projects.

Together, these seven axes aim to provide district residents with employment, education, health, and recreation in the same area, thereby reducing infrastructure maintenance costs and promoting a smart, compact city model (CCD and ADICyDdeJ, 2023).

The project was originally planned in three sequential stages (CCD and ADICyDdeJ, 2023): The DCC governance has evolved from a public-private partnership scheme to a rigid, vertical, institutionalized structure under state control that does not allow for co-production.

• Phase 1 (Mobilization, 2012–2015): Focused on “catalyst” projects such as the Ingenium educational complex, the Mexican Media Museum (M4), the Alameda Promenade, and the First Creative Complex.
• Phase 2 (Critical Mass, 2015–2019): Attracting production and media companies to achieve economic self-sufficiency for the Creative site.
• Phase 3 (Consolidation, from 2019 onwards): Completion of construction in all available blocks and establishment of a mature creative industrial cluster.

The Initial Plan (2012–2018) was based on the interaction of two main entities (Arellano Ríos, 2019; CCD and ADICyDdeJ, 2023; SEPLAN, 2022): 1) The DCC Master Trust, which would be responsible for controlling the project's financing and assets. Its technical committee included the three levels of government, local universities (UdeG, ITESO, Tec de Monterrey), and industrial chambers (CANIETI, CCIJ); and 2) a civil association responsible for supervising and implementing the Master Plan strategy: Guadalajara Ciudad Creativa Digital A.C.

The main characteristics of the DCC's governance were multi-stakeholder complexity, lack of cohesion, and the influence of global models. The most involved actors came from the public, private, and academic sectors, while local communities and other social actors have not been properly integrated into the project's construction processes. There is a fragmented narrative and limited capacity for coordination among actors, leading to mistrust and delays in project implementation. The DCC has adopted global urban models, but with limited capacity to adapt them to local needs.

During the early years, the project was heavily criticized for its lack of tangible progress and transparency (Arellano Ríos, 2019; Navarrete Ulloa, 2018). The most serious problems experienced were administrative and management issues. These included the management of the DCC Ventures Fund, a venture capital fund created in 2014, which contributed 96 million pesos to the project (five million dollars) and to which 30 million pesos (1.6 million dollars) had to be returned in 2016 due to administrative inefficiency and a lack of qualified projects on the part of those responsible for the project, which undermined the project's credibility and triggered other problems. Noteworthy is the departure of anchor companies such as Bosch, which, although it was the first to set up shop, withdrew after several years of waiting for the promised buildings due to the slow pace of construction and development on the project. In addition, the Federal Superior Audit Office (ASF) observed improper payments, simulated contracting, and incomplete work in the first complex, totaling irregularities of more than 73 million pesos (3.8 million dollars) and undermining the credibility of the developer and management entity.

To overcome stagnation, the current state administration created the Agency for the Development of Creative and Digital Industries of the State of Jalisco (CCD and ADICyDdeJ, 2023). It was established as a Decentralized Public Body (OPD) with its own legal personality, eliminating the duality of the previous Civil Association to achieve greater transparency and administrative efficiency. The agency's functions include managing real estate and urban development in the area; promoting domestic and foreign investment in the creative sector; and fostering the training of specialized human capital and the consolidation of new companies.

Starting in 2022, the strategy has been redesigned under the trademark Distrito Creativo Guadalajara (Guadalajara Creative District), with a pragmatic focus on repopulation and profitability (CCD and ADICyDdeJ, 2023). Progress has been slow, but by the end of 2022, the first creative complex was already in place, including two office towers (A and C) housing fifteen economic units, including animation (Demente), video game (Amber), software (XTendOps), and pharmaceutical laboratory (Pisa) companies. In addition to these companies, the Technological University of Jalisco (UTJ) and the Open Innovation Platform (PLAi) operate another tower (C), where thousands of students are trained in new technologies, both in person and virtually. In terms of buildings dedicated to innovation activities, Tower B is currently under construction, meaning that, more than 10 years after the project began, the productive phase has not yet been completed. However, work has been done to rehabilitate public spaces in the vicinity of the complex, including an emblematic park in the city (Morelos Park) and a school that is also representative of historic Guadalajara (the Basilio Vadillo School), which, in some way, has contributed to the insertion of the project into its context. Both, according to the DCC administration, are catalysts for the project's development.

One of the greatest current challenges facing the Guadalajara Metropolitan Area (GMA) is the demographic crisis in the central municipality where the DCC is located. In 1990, the municipality of Guadalajara recorded its maximum population, with 1,650,205 inhabitants living in 331,485 dwellings. However, the cumulative population decline between 1990 and 2020 is already greater than 264,000 inhabitants, despite the addition of 67,000 homes over those 30 years. Consequently, projects that can reverse this process, including housing, are, for the most part, welcomed by the municipality and the GMA. By the end of 2025, the DCC had not yet been a factor in reversing the process; in fact, it had contributed to negative figures, as the intervention area saw a 37% reduction in its population between 2010 and 2020 (from 632 to 394 inhabitants) (INEGI, 2011, 2021). In addition, only 70% of existing homes were occupied, resulting in insufficient occupancy across the GMA's central municipality (INEGI, 2021).

The new vision of a “Creative District” seeks to promote social revitalization through mixed-use projects, i.e., projects that include housing. The plan is to build at least 353 new homes and 24 commercial premises by 2024 (SEPLAN, 2022).

At the end of 2025, key properties (A, B, C, and D) owned by the Trust for Self-Sustainable Housing Development were tendered (see Table 2). To repopulate the district, the aim is to attract digital nomads, students, and employees in the creative sector aged 26–45, and to consolidate the compact city model, where people live and work in the same environment.

Table 2. Mixed-use sites and their characteristics. Source: SEPLAN, 2022.

The institutional goal is to consolidate Guadalajara as the Latin American leader in digital audiovisual production, technological development, and innovation by 2030. To achieve this, the Agency has drawn up a roadmap focused on three areas of action: 1) Increase the budget for technology-based ventures and academic links in order to strengthen the innovation ecosystem; 2) Incorporate a gender perspective into public programs and ensure that the benefits of technological development reach the original inhabitants, achieving inclusion and social cohesion; and 3) Position Guadalajara as the “Technological Capital of Mexico” by taking advantage of its time zone and culture to attract more high-tech companies and generate jobs and, consequently, economic benefits for the city.

Currently only the first creative complex has now been built, consisting of two towers that together cover 13,000 m² (Author's empirical analysis).

In conclusion, the Digital Creative City has gone from being an ambitious theoretical project of complex governance to a physical reality that, after overcoming initial administrative and financial crises, is now committed to urban densification and technological industrial leadership to definitively transform the Historic Center of Guadalajara, but it has yet to prove its effectiveness (Supplementary Maps 1, 2 and 3).

5 The digital creative city in Guadalajara (DCC). The present and future of an innovation district

A comparison between general theories on innovation districts and the specific case of the Digital Creative City in Guadalajara (DCC) reveals a significant alignment between theoretical planning and urban design, but also highlights critical gaps in practical implementation, governance, and social outcomes.

The mainstream literature notes that these districts seek to transform degraded or underutilized industrial areas into urban laboratories, often serving as prototypes for interventions where city planners observe a need. The DCC is consistent with this in choosing the Morelos Park area in the Historic Center, a zone that had lost inhabitants and had available land that was already public property after the failed Pan American Village project (see Supplementary Map 2). Furthermore, similar examples indicate that districts should be compact, mixed-use, and should promote an environment that integrates housing, offices, and commerce under the live-work-play model. The DCC Master Plan, designed by MIT, strictly follows this recommendation by proposing a “complex city” with a dense neighborhood structure and seven axes of renewal that seek to provide residents with employment, health, and recreation in the same area—although for now, this is still an ideal model that has not reversed the process of depopulation in the district.

The mainstream literature highlights the need to integrate institutions that add value into the ecosystem. The DCC has done so by integrating the Technological University of Jalisco (UTJ) and the Open Innovation Platform (PLAi) as educational and technological pillars within its office towers. However, these institutions are newly created and are experiencing the same drawbacks as the DCC, which would probably not have occurred if established institutions, such as the University of Guadalajara (UG) itself, the state's public university with a strong reputation in this area of knowledge, had been integrated into the project. The absence of the UG as an active participant in the project resulted from a highly unstable relationship between the state government of Jalisco and the university. Both the theory and the DCC project emphasize attracting professionals, scientists, and artists through a vibrant environment. The DCC's current goal remains to attract “digital nomads” and creative sector employees, but persistent insecurity and urban dynamics have prevented the complex from becoming sufficiently attractive to them. In conversations with DCC employees, it was found that the creative class already working in the district prefers to travel a few kilometers to other neighborhoods of the city that offer more green spaces and recreational areas, where they find a better quality of life and, above all, safety for their families. The surroundings of Morelos Park have not been improved; most of the old buildings remain in the same condition as before the DCC project started, so the new buildings stand in stark contrast to the neighborhood's dilapidated appearance (see Figure 1). The lack of urban interventions in the neighborhood has not been successful in changing the creative class's perception of insecurity and decay.

During the on-site observation sessions, it was evident that after 8 pm there were practically no pedestrians, creating a sense of insecurity. Most businesses close at 7 pm, bus service slows down, and workers head home to areas outside the historic center. This, combined with the fact that there are very few residences in the immediate vicinity, means there is no surveillance by the users of the public spaces (streets and plazas) themselves.

Neighbors also complained that the presence of new buildings attracts outsiders who rarely come out, cause traffic in the mornings and evenings, and leave at 7 pm, only to return at 8 am the next day, excluding Saturdays and Sundays.

Although the project has followed guidelines that have been successful in similar districts in other cities around the world, there are some inconsistencies in practice; that is, there is a large gap between theory and operational and social reality, which shows that it is not possible to propose a “one-size-fits-all” solution, as its development depends on multiple factors.

The greatest discrepancies arise when comparing the ideals of governance and social equity with the results obtained in Guadalajara. While theory suggests that district management should be independent of political cycles to ensure a long-term vision, the DCC has undergone profound structural transformations (from a civil association to a decentralized state agency in 2019) to overcome the stagnation and administrative inefficiencies of previous administrations. A political move that responded to administrative issues and a lack of transparency identified by the Federal Superior Audit Office, but ultimately failed in the “collaborative governance” dimension proposed in the international literature.

Triple and “quadruple helix” governance models require the democratization of knowledge and the inclusion of civil society. In contrast, the DCC has been criticized for its multi-stakeholder complexity and lack of cohesion, with local communities not properly integrated, which has led to mistrust. This mistrust stems from the failed Villa project, which displaced some existing businesses in the district.

The theory of creative districts aims to stabilize the community and prevent exclusion. However, the DCC has been inconsistent in practice: far from reversing depopulation, the area suffered a population decline between 2010 and 2020, rather than revitalizing the original social fabric. Although the theory holds that this type of project represents an opportunity to generate new poles of attraction for the population, the DCC has not managed to consolidate an integrated housing offer that can persuade creative people to move there and enjoy a 24/7 experience. Furthermore, neighbors are still suspicious of the future of the district since promised features, such as new and available facilities, are still not in place (see Supplementary Maps 1, 2 and 3).

The literature also recommends the use of open data and budget transparency. By contrast, the DCC was marked in its early days by opacity, administrative inefficiency (return of venture capital funds), and even observations by the Federal Superior Audit Office regarding incomplete works and simulated contracts. These practices have been persistent in public-sector projects, generating mistrust among investors and undermining the potential of public-private partnerships as an investment model.

The theory highlights the importance of coordination for collaboration to emerge in a planned manner. In the DCC, the slow pace of construction led to the departure of strategic anchor companies, such as Bosch, which withdrew after years of waiting for the promised buildings. These projects require capital, and most of it must come from the public sector, at least in the early stages.

In conclusion, the DCC is theoretically consistent with global models of innovation districts in its architectural and economic vision, but it has been inconsistent in its governance and social outcomes, facing challenges of depopulation and public management that the theory warns are critical risks.

The natural steps for this innovation district to thrive should begin with generating more housing options, including the context, that is, promoting integration into the ecosystem of a safe, attractive habitat for potential residents. Even when construction of the more than 750 housing units planned for lots A, B, C, and D is complete, there is no guarantee that new residents will arrive. It is necessary to improve the quality of the enclave to make it attractive so that young professionals and students will take ownership of the district. The formula proposed by the live-work-play model has not yet been tested in the district and, for now, remains unclear in its entirety. This could help prevent depopulation in the center of the AMG, but it still requires work and management to provide basic infrastructure and equipment.

While it is necessary to promote and consolidate repopulation, it is also necessary to strengthen the innovation ecosystem, i.e., to complete Tower B, to provide sufficient space for new companies that will complement the activities in the innovation district. Investment in technology-based ventures needs to be increased while strengthening links with educational institutions. It is advisable to attract well-known technology companies to serve as anchor stores and encourage more players to join the ecosystem.

To avoid the mistakes of opacity and stagnation of the past, solid command structures are required. This can only be achieved if the district is managed independently of political cycles—three-year terms—with a long-term vision that is not interrupted by changes in administration. The DCC should implement digital tools to monitor the impact of urban transformation and maintain open data schemes that are accountable to the community. There should be a transition from traditional planning to project-based governance that enables more flexible and rapid coordination among government, academia, and industry.

The DCC must promote social inclusion and community cohesion by integrating original residents (in housing and commerce); it is necessary to ensure that the benefits of technological development reach residents who have remained in the area, preventing the district from becoming an enclave for elites. To achieve this, it is necessary to actively incorporate a gender perspective into public programs and encourage the co-creation of technologies that solve local social challenges. Only in this way will it be possible to evolve towards a quadruple helix model that formally integrates civil society into decision-making and builds a common narrative that reduces local mistrust.

The case study of the Creative Digital City (DCC) in Guadalajara has made it possible to examine the transformative impacts of digitization in economic, urban, social, and governance dimensions: Digitization has driven Guadalajara's transition from a traditional electronics-based industrial base to a global hub of the knowledge economy. On the one hand, the creation of a Technology Hub aims to position the city as the main center for audiovisual, software, video game, and animation production in the Spanish-speaking world. On the other hand, it has disrupted value chains by aiming to migrate from manufacturing to high-value-added services and digital design, leveraging local talent in digital media. In the case of the DCC, the project aims to regenerate degraded areas (brownfields) that are nevertheless located in a privileged position in the metropolis's center. To this end, it has adopted the “complex city” model, with a “smart city” master plan that integrates housing, work, and leisure in a compact, dense environment. The digital infrastructure has been built, including creative complexes (Towers A, B, and C) and corridors with digital connectivity and green infrastructure. Digitization has sought to redefine who lives in the city and how they work, as one of its goals is to attract the “Creative Class” with dynamic and modern design to attract digital nomads, scientists, and professionals between the ages of 26 and 45, considered the engines of modern innovation, and with the integration of educational facilities, including institutions such as the Technological University of Jalisco (UTJ) and the Open Innovation Platform (PLAi) directly into the ecosystem to train specialized human capital. In addition to the slow project development, the DCC has experienced some negative impacts and failures during this digital transformation. Depopulation and gentrification continue despite the intention to revitalize the area; the district's population fell by 37% between 2010 and 2020. Social exclusion remains latent if the original population cannot be retained, creating the risk of “elite enclaves” that displace original residents and fail to properly integrate the local community into the technological benefits. The digitization and complexity of these projects have forced the public administration to change. An adaptive governance model must be created that transitions from a traditional hierarchical model to “project-based governance”, seeking more flexible and transparent structures to manage the uncertainty of innovation. The use of open data through digital tools is recommended to monitor urban impacts and ensure budget transparency.

• Transformation of Economic and Industrial Vocation.

• 2. Reconfiguration of Urban Space (Smart City).

• 3. Demographic and Labor Market Impacts.

• 4. Adverse Social Effects.

• 5. Evolution of Governance.

In summary, while digitization has enabled Guadalajara to project itself as the “Technological Capital of Mexico” and to renew its physical infrastructure, critical challenges remain in converting that physical space into a living, equitable social fabric.

The future success of the DCC depends on its ability to transform physical space into a living social fabric, where technology serves as an engine of equitable development rather than merely a real estate label (Figure 2).

Generative AI statement

The author declares that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fhumd.2026.1829357/full#supplementary-material

Original layout of the DCC district in 2006 (1), Vacant land acquired by the municipality to develop DCC in 2009 (2), and Current status of the DCC in 2006 (3). Source: Google images and municipal cadaster. Maps produced by Zulema Lizbeth Chavoya Aguirre Supplementary material at the source

Supplementary material Supplementary material at the source

Supplementary material Supplementary material at the source

Footnotes

Edited by: Abdul Shaban, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, India

Reviewed by: Jacob Bañuelos Capistrán, Monterrey Institute of Technology and Higher Education (ITESM), Mexico

Muhammad Ibrahim Wani, University of Kashmir, India

Mariana Rosca, Moldova State University, Moldova