In recent years the diverse primary food production activities in cities known as ‘urban agriculture’ have proliferated on the ground, in policy and in academic discourse. Most explicit representations of urban agriculture (UA) are positive, advocating its many related benefits and success stories, or critiquing barriers that restrict it. Despite widespread appeal, the way UA is imagined and planned remains highly varied and uncertain. To understand better the splintering and insular discourses and competing arguments about the role of UA in cities (especially in a developed world context), we draw on empirical research in Melbourne, Australia, to unpack what different stakeholders mean by the term. Using critical discourse analysis, we map contrasting perspectives on UA expressed by various groups (government, practitioners, media, academia) including some groups who could engage with UA but do not. We find that while UA is perceived by some as a strongly positive development, it is seen to be of little consequence by many others. General disinterest in UA is evident among traditional agriculture stakeholders and rural‐oriented groups in particular. Discourses about UA reflect differences in (1) whether UA is primarily conceived through the lens of land, food or people; and (2) how UA is imagined to relate to the rest of agriculture and the rest of the city. We conclude that although UA is increasingly ‘inside the urban tent’ as a legitimate land use and activity, it remains marginal. Moreover, it remains ‘outside the agriculture tent’ in that it does not seem to be conceived as a legitimate form of agriculture in comparison to the implicit Other: rural agriculture. We conclude that UA needs to move beyond its city‐centric approach and rural agriculture needs to move beyond its general disinterest in UA so that important and necessary connections can be recognised and forged.