The impact of nature’s rights on the legal system and in the world depends in part on perceptions of its compatibility with anthropocentric rights. The presumption that the protection of nature’s rights excludes human action has limited its perceived place and usefulness. Siting nature’s rights in cities contests this presumption. To do so, this article puts rights of nature and the human right to the city in conversation. It draws mostly on Ecuador, the only country with both types of rights enshrined in its constitution. While these appear to be very different sets of rights, this article analyzes three points of convergence. The first is the centrality of critiques of an extractivist model of collective life. The second is the insistence on the maintenance of various forms of difference, including different ways of living, which is meant to disrupt the political, economic, and cultural circuits of extractivism. The third is an ambiguous orientation toward established structures of political authority. Based on these convergences, this article argues that rights of nature and the right to the city may help to politicize the production of urban nature and broaden possible socio-environmental futures.