Relocating to NoVA and looking for good options

[Carlingtonian]

Originally Posted by Tone509

IMO Tysons Corner is urban in the way that much of, say, Houston and Los Angeles are urban: that is, high density without the walkability. Given that the proximity to the myriad of office parks and retail, and now the Silver Line as well, I don't think the premium rates at Tysons would be worth it for the OP since he may likely be driving.

I co-sign with the Reston Town Center and Fair Oaks suggestions, favoring RTC. I don't know enough about the Mosaic District to comment.

You can say that again!

I had assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that the newer parts of Tysons must be more pedestrian-friendly than the older parts I'm familiar with.

I think the reason some people don't consider Mosaic to be truly urban is that it's so small. I like the place--in big part because of its free parking. It does seem urban in that it has tall buildings, and some of them are residential. But Mosaic is an island next to a couple of highways. I'm not saying it's not a nice place to live or that it shouldn't be on Rocketman's short list; I think it should be. But to equate it to a larger, busier mixed-use area like Clarendon I don't think is accurate.

[JD984]

Originally Posted by Carlingtonian

You can say that again!

I had assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that the newer parts of Tysons must be more pedestrian-friendly than the older parts I'm familiar with.

I think the reason some people don't consider Mosaic to be truly urban is that it's so small. I like the place--in big part because of its free parking. It does seem urban in that it has tall buildings, and some of them are residential. But Mosaic is an island next to a couple of highways. I'm not saying it's not a nice place to live or that it shouldn't be on Rocketman's short list; I think it should be. But to equate it to a larger, busier mixed-use area like Clarendon I don't think is accurate.

Who "equated" Mosaic with Clarendon? I didn't see that, just a few suggestions that it offered some urbanity and walkability (currently, within its confines and, eventually, along the longer stretch of Gallows Road up to the Dunn Loring Metro) at a lower price point than Arlington. If someone working in Chantilly looks to rent in Arlington, they'll be competing with more high-salaried young professionals working in DC, so it does tend to bring into focus how important the street life along the Orange Line corridor may be to one's sense of well-being, compared to potentially saving more money by living in a place like Mosaic or RTC. But, no doubt, they are different experiences.

And what does it mean to be "truly urban"? Does that have specific attributes (residential population density, building height, WalkScore, etc.)? Sometimes I think it's just a club that people from Arlington and Alexandria have decided no part of Fairfax can be allowed to join, even though it's the most populous jurisdiction in the region.

[Carlingtonian]

Well, OK, I guess no one equated Mosaic to Clarendon, so I could've chosen a better word. But it seems there are two schools of thought in this thread: that Mosaic is an exciting mixed-use area and therefore qualifies as urban--and that it's a small, relatively quiet island of mixed use and thus is not urban. ("Urban" really just means "city," so the way we're using it here, it's fraught with subjectivity.)

In the context of the question the OP asked, I took it that by "city living"--I realize now he said this instead of "urban"--he meant he's looking for lots of street activity, even into the night; numerous and varied streetfront businesses; a wide variety of readily available, nearby public transit; and cultural attractions, like ethnic restaurants and movies. Mosaic, from what I can tell in the handful of times I've visited, seems to have some of these but not all (particularly regarding nightlife and transit) and not in as great a degree as he may be desiring. I do think it's an option he should consider, given the proximity to his job and the fact that he would be paying so much less in rent for what is arguably only a little less "urban" a lifestyle.

Some people--not I--would add to the definition that "urban" requires a certain degree of "grit"--by which they mean (as best I can tell) some older buildings; various "characters" on the sidewalks; lots of demonstrations and/or streetside performance art; and cranky working-class residents who have lived there a long time. I think the lack of these things is what leads the hard-core DC types to scoff that nothing in NoVA or Maryland is truly urban--because it's all too new, too corporate, too sanitized. Of course, everyone in NYC and Chicago would laugh that DC considers itself a city. (I don't agree; after all, most of Berlin was built post-1945, and I've heard Geneva and Stockholm are spotless. Yet no one would say those cities aren't urban.)

So it's all in the personal lexicon and ego of the beholder, I guess.