Many proponents of bringing animals back into our accounts of urban life also strive to take seriously the city as a shared space “replete with animate, sentient beings” (Wolch, 2002). As growing numbers of wild animals are thriving in the midst of our cities, however, the terms of coexistence often remain contentious. Discourses that refuse to assign the city and nature to separate categories have to contend with popular perceptions of (some) wildlife as nuisance animals or pests to be controlled or removed from human-inhabited spaces altogether. The persistence in the popular imagination and in municipal practices of the “animal control” approach to urban wildlife raises challenging questions for large-scale urban infrastructure projects such as green stormwater management and parkland revitalization that, in harnessing natural systems, would seem to enhance opportunities for wild animals to find food and shelter in the city. My analysis of urban infrastructure policy planning documents produced by the City of Philadelphia suggests that “green infrastructure” proposals are never justified in terms of enhancing opportunities for urban wildlife. Rather, urban nature in these documents appears as a largely benign provider of ecosystem services, such as cleaner air or water, intended to benefit the city’s human residents. What does this elision of wildlife from major policy management frameworks regarding the future of urban nature imply for the project of developing a compelling vision of the city as a shared space for human and nonhuman residents?