In the creation of better cities, urban ecologists, designers (architects and landscape architects), and planners have a lot in common: to create and/or facilitate the creation of better urban environments. Each has their own interests and areas of agency, but all are working in the same arena: the urban realm. There are a lot of shared values, or one would think. Yet, they are still three distinct professions, so there are ways in which we may say similar sounding things but mean something different. For example, what are the key elements of “better environments”? One key elements of “better” is the improved resilience, sustainability, livability, and hopefully, justice, that can be achieved in cities using nature-based solutions and ecological approaches to city-building. But the three professions do not necessarily share visions, goals, or even language about “nature-based solutions”. The professions have different reward systems and different constituencies. In fact, all three of these professions rarely end up at the same discussion tables in city building. They operate in different orbits. This must change if we are to create and/or facilitate coupled human-natural environments that are better for both people and nature. Baked into this challenge is certainly an issue of communication. Many have suggested that if we just talked to each other more, and more effectively, these problems would be solved. But it is also possible that basic assumptions, methods, and values do not exactly align. How do we build a shared vocabulary of city building, one that includes ecological theory, methods, and practice? The responses in this session include paths to the development of a unified vocabulary and value set; suggestions for more integrated training; and collaboration that functions across disciplinary boundaries.