Over the past decade urban agriculture has been recognised as a method for achieving greener, healthier, and more equitable cities by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO 2014), the UN Sustainable Development Goals (UNDESA 2019), the Ecocity movement (Ecocity Builders 2019, UEA 2019), the C40 Cities initiative (2019), and others. As the practice becomes more popular, real estate developers, politicians, and community associations have promoted it to advance distinct agendas.Researchers have identified some of the conflicting agendas that coalesce in urban agriculture, finding that "ecogentrification" often undermines progressive projects (Gould and Lewis 2017, McClintock 2017). As Nathan McClintock writes, "coming to terms with its internal contradictions can help activists, policy-makers and practitioners better position urban agriculture within coordinated efforts for structural change" (2014:147). This article examines the contradictory narratives about urban agriculture deployed by property developers and community advocates to discern how its practice can both deepen inequalities and improve structural conditions.Australia and Brazil reflect a comparable history of food production: from indigenous subsistence farming to colonial agriculture, and subsequent reliance on transnational agribusiness to service European and more recently Chinese demand (Alejandro 1985, Hearn 2012. The expansion of commodity crops in both countries has combined with rapid urbanisation to encroach on peri-urban land, where fresh food has historically been grown for both nations' cities. This process has stimulated greater awareness of industrial agriculture's myriad consequences and an emerging rediscovery of small-scale urban horticulture (Carey et al. 2018, Rose andHearn 2017). But gardening is not what it used to be. Intense competition for land; loss of subsidised council allotments and horticulture staff; and contaminated air, water, and soil are among the pressures confronting urban agriculture in both countries.According to The Economist, in 2017 Melbourne was the "world's most liveable city" for the seventh consecutive year and has since ranked second after Vienna, while São Paulo-now the Southern hemisphere's largest city-continued to grapple with lack of green space, air pollution, and entrenched inequality (Economist 2017(Economist , 2019. On the ground, though, the liveability criteria of a conservative magazine do not equate to sustainable urban outcomes. Economic streamlining and deregulation are generating a particular kind of liveability that emphasises marketable aspects of sustainability while diverting attention away from broader structural challenges.The phenomenon of "urban sustainability fix" identified by Aiden While et al. ( 2004) manifests in Melbourne and São Paulo through the proliferation of ostensibly green apartment complexes that include community vegetable gardens and microorchards. These features, offered at premium prices, are advertised as a means to rediscover lost connection...