In urban planning there is a new trend with concentration in reaction to urban sprawl. This tendency raises the question of the role & function of green sites in the city. The urban often is depicted as the anti-thesis of nature, implying a firm distinction between nature & culture. Although, such a distinction is anything but given, the modern definition of nature as “the other” of human society & culture is apparent in the relationship between humans & their environment, whether it concerns humans’ mas- tery over nature or humans as its keeper. The notion of “urban nature” is an oxymoron that alludes both to people’s well-being (parks & recreation areas in the city are often pointed out as important places for comfort & good health) and to environmental concerns (e.g. “green corridors” are stressed & promoted as vital in the endeavour to preserve biodiversity in urban areas). The aim of this paper is to analyze the construction of “na- ture” in urban planning. What are the arguments for a certain nature care in urban areas? What function and values are attached to “urban nature”? What negotiations between sometimes contradictory social, cultural & environmental values are taking place in the planning process? The paper includes a case study of Stockholm, where a new general outline plan is under construction. This planning process evinces a redefinition of green sites & their function in the city, implying a shift from an ideal of the “green city” towards an ideal of the “compact city”. Furthermore, this shift in planning ideal indicates an emphasis on the notion of urbanity, referring to values such as density & cultural diversity at the expense of green spaces for recreational purposes & not least at the expense of greenfield sites & “wildlife corridors” for environmental reasons. Keywords: bio- diversity, urban planning, urban nature, nature-culture divide