When a municipality considered building in a green area, the issue was quickly described as conflict between nature and development. Some wanted more housing; others used the area for walks and play. Discussion revealed meanings beyond a map. For a family, the path was a safe school route. For an older resident, it was a place to meet others without spending money. Planners asked residents to describe the area's role in daily life. They explored alternative locations and preserving parts of the green space. No solution avoided costs or loss. Yet concrete descriptions clarified what was at stake. Debate becomes poorer when reduced to two fixed camps. This does not mean all interests can be reconciled, but conflicts should be examined before being taken for granted. Sound decisions need both knowledge of nature and understanding of a place's social function. Only then can development be discussed in terms of those who will actually live there.