Taking a break out of the seemingly endless election cycle, I attended a NLA event last week on 'Grappling with Growth'. The event was an intriguing dialogue between London's Deputy Mayor for Planning, Regeneration and Skills, Jules Pipe, and his counterpart in New York, Alicia Glen. It was an interesting eye opener and, to those of us who have become guilty of being too London (or U.K.) centric, it exposed the fact that our growth problems are not unique.

London and New York are facing unprecedented growth rates. London's population is set to increase to 10.5 million by 2040. In New York it's a similar tale. Its population is set to reach 9 million by 2040 and the city's recent economic resurgence has caused its own problems with housing not keeping up with growth. As an aside it was interesting to note the difference in tone across the Atlantic - for New York the lack of housing is a sign of the city's recent success as a prosperous city, for London it is seen as a sign of failure of past administrations; a spin on a message can make a difference.

Both cities face similar challenges, but what are the differences? In London, City Hall has more power over transport than housing, while in New York they have power over housing but not transport. This is not so much a difference in philosophy, but more a consequence of circumstance and the way the machinery of government has evolved in the two countries.

What can we learn, if anything, from the two cities and their respective approaches?

One of the main differences is affordable housing – that highly politicised aspect of housing growth. In New York there is no such thing as a viability assessment. It is mandatory for developers to provide 20-30 percent for affordable units in their schemes. The way in which they categorise affordable homes is also different; the units are linked to income, not the market rate as it is in London (a distinction that Pipe noted puts a question mark over how affordable ‘affordable units’ really are). But the biggest difference is the greater emphasis on the rental market in New York – something Iceni Projects continues to champion as London increasingly looks to the Build to Rent sector and the positive contribution it can make.

For New York, the main problem it faces is its aged transport infrastructure and how to connect the growing city. For London the investment in infrastructure is ongoing, with extensions to the Northern and Bakerloo lines as well as Crossrail. But, as Pipe stressed, whilst this is positive it is also important that London doesn’t simply increase housing growth around this infrastructure to create ‘connected suburbs’. Rather, the focus needs to be on communities and, in order to achieve this, mixed-use developments are key.

Pipe would not be drawn on specific lessons to be learnt from his counterpart in New York, but it is clear that there will be some changes to come out of City Hall over the coming months. He told us the New London Plan (next draft expected Autumn 2017) will be much more accessible to the layman, with less planning jargon (something that New York already does). There is also going to be a greater emphasis on design and placemaking. We should also keep an eye out for a Teach First style programme for planning professionals to help London realise its talent potential.

So while there are many differences between the two cities, London can learn a lot from a continued dialogue with its international counterparts. Population growth is, after all, a global issue and sometimes we can all be guilty of taking an insular approach to grappling with the question of growth.