HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-PB-rpt Socio-Economic Characteristics of Lexington Socio-Economic Characteristics
of
Lexington, Massachusetts
Volume One: Population
Town of Lexington
Planning Department
Socio-Economic Characteristics
of Lexington
Volume 1: Population
Town of Lexington, Massachusetts
Planning Department
April 1994
Town of Lexington
Planning Department
Robert A. Bowyer, Planning Director, was principally responsible for the text of the report.
Joseph A.Marino, Assistant Planner,was principally responsible for the preparation of the data base, analysis
of the data, and the figures and table in the report.
Elissa M. Tap, Department Clerk, was principally responsible for layout of the report and editing the
manuscript.
Lexington Planning Board.
Robert H. Domnitz, Chairman Edmund C. Grant
Jacqueline B. Davison, Vice Chairman Frederick L. Merrill, Jr.
Richard L. Canale, Clerk
Town Manager
Richard J. White
ii --
Contents
Preface vii
Summary ix
INTRODUCTION 1
The US Census 1
US Census Methodology 1
Additional Information 2
The Study Area 2
The Study Area — Growth in the Northwest Sector 2
1. TOTAL POPULATION 5
Suburbanization and Population Change 5
Peak Population 7
Similarities in Change in the Study Area 9
2. BIRTHS AND DEATHS, MOBILITY 11
Net Natural Change: Births and Deaths 11
Net Mobility 11
Birth Rates 14
Fertility Ratio 14
3. MALE/FEMALE DISTRIBUTION 15
Aging Affects Male-Female Distribution 15
4. AGE GROUPS 17
Age Groups 18
Younger Age Groups 20
Adult Age Groups 22
Older Age Groups 23
Comparison to Study Area — A Pattern of Extremes 25
5. MEDIAN AGE 27
6. SERVICE AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS 29
Service Implications for Town Departments 29
Understanding Our Changing Population 29
What is in the Future? 30
Improved Capability to Monitor Change 31
Policy Choices 31
Glossary 33
iii
Illustrations
FIGURES
Figure 1 The Study Area 3
Figure 2 Lexington's Population 1900-1990 5
Figure 3 Lexington's Population: The Seventeenth Century 6
Figure 4 Lexington's Population: The Eighteenth Century 6
Figure 5 Lexington's Population: The Nineteenth Century 6
Figure 6 Numerical Changes in Total Population: Lexington 1900-1990 7
— Figure 7 Percentage Change in Total Population: Lexington 1900-1990 7
Figure 8 Peak Population 8
Figure 9 Percentage Change in Population: 1920-1990 9
Figure 10 Births and Deaths: Lexington 1950-1990 11
Figure 11 Net Natural Change: Lexington 1950-1990 12
Figure 12 Factors Causing Population Change: Lexington: 1950-1990 13
Figure 13 Male-Female Distribution: Lexington and Massachusetts 1990 16
Figure 14 Age Group Distribution: Lexington and Massachusetts 1990 17
Figure 15 Life Cycle Age Groups: Lexington 1950-1990 18
Figure 16 Life Cycle Age Groups: Younger Age Groups 20
Figure 17 Life Cycle Age Groups: Adult Age Group 22
Figure 18 Life Cycle Age Groups: Older Age Groups 23
Figure 19 Elderly Population: Lexington 1950-1990 24
Figure 20 Persons per Household by Age Group: Lexington 1950-1990 26
Figure 21 Increase in Median Age: 1970-1990 28
TABLES
Table 1 Peak Populations 8
Table 2 Net Natural Change and Net Mobility 12
Table 3 Birth Rates 14
Table 4 Life Cycle Age Groups: Numerical Totals and Percentages 19
Table 5 Comparison of 1990 Age Groups 25
Table 6 Average Persons Per Household 26
Table 7 Massachusetts Communities Ranked by Median Age 27
Table 8 Median Age 1950 to 1990 28
v
Preface
1. to analyze how Lexington has changed re-
Lexington has an aging population,ranking it cently—since the previous US Census in 1980;
— among the highest median ages in all of
2. to analyze how Lexington has changed over a
Massachusetts, but also has a higher
percentage of school aged children than all of longer time period—since World War II;
the communities that abut Lexington except 3. to identify those changes that Lexington shares
Lincoln. This report seeks to explain this with, and those that differentiate it from, other
anomaly and other characteristics of nearby communities, Middlesex County and
Lexington's population. the State of Massachusetts;
4. to provide data for other Town departments to
_ With this volume, the Planning Department starts a use in planning the delivery of services for
series of reports on the socio-economic characteristics Lexington residents and businesses;
of Lexington. In our recent report, Land Use
5. to provide data for businesses and institutions
Change in the Eighties, we observed:
Towns like Lexington experience gradual and to meet the needs of Lexington residents and
subtle changes. Unless one makes the effort businesses;
periodically to identify and evaluate change, the 6. to provide data needed for several elements of
Town can experience important, even irreversible the Comprehensive Plan;
changes to its character. The passing of a decade
offers an opportunity—indeed, a responsibil 7. to encourage public officials to review and
ity—to analyze the trends and patterns of change discuss the trends and public policy issues they
that occurred during that period. raise; (See Chapter 6, Service and Policy
This series of reports concentrates on Lexington's Implications, for an outline of some of the
people rather than its land development trends—the issues affecting Lexington's future.)
subject of the Land Use Change report. 8. to assemble, in one place, an array of data
about Lexington that makes research easier for
The data for these reports is drawn largely from the numerous people with varied interests.
United States Census of Population and Housing,
taken every 10 years. The United States Census, One of the major tasks for the Planning Department
started in 1790, has grown from a simple is to provide information to, and to assist, when
"headcount" for determining the number of represen- requested, other Town departments in planning the
tatives in the Congress and other electoral districts to delivery of services to Lexington residents. Some
an invaluable source of information about the Ameri- data has already been provided to agencies as diverse
can people used by numerous public agencies and as the Human Services Committee, the School
private businesses. For those unfamiliar with the US Department, the Transportation Coordinator, the
Census, the amount of information available and the Library, the Police Department and the Lexington
potential for analysis is remarkable. Chamber of Commerce.
This series is timely because of the recent release of Volume 1 in this series concentrates on population
data from the Bureau of the Census and the need to and demographic data (See the Glossary at the end of
periodically analyze trends affecting Lexington. The this report), such as total population, birth and death
series has several objectives: rates, mobility patterns (See Glossary), male/female
distribution, age group composition, and median age
vii
(See Glossary). The other volumes planned for this
series and their projected titles, at this writing, are:
Volume 2: Economic Characteristics
Volume 3: Transportation Characteristics
Volume 4: More Population Characteristics:Race,
Mobility, Ancestry, Language
Volume 5: Housing
The order of production of the reports, and their
titles, may change.
viii
Summary
With this volume, the Planning Department starts a housing opportunities dictate population change,how
series of reports on the socio-economic characteristics does one explain this anomaly - in a period when the
of Lexington. In our recent report, Land Use number of jobs in Lexington nearly doubled, and the
Change in the Eighties, we observed: number of housing units increased by more than 10
Towns like Lexington experience gradual and percent, why did the town's population decrease?
subtle changes. Unless one makes the effort
periodically to identify and evaluate change, the This Report makes frequent comparisons to a "study
Town can experience important, even irreversible area" (See Glossary) of nearby communities to
changes to its character. The passing of a decade demonstrate that Lexington is not an island. It is
offers an opportunity—indeed, a responsibility—to part of a larger economic region and a larger housing
analyze the trends and patterns of change that market that drive most of the population changes
occurred during that period. Lexington has experienced. The "study area" con-
sists of communities that abut Lexington—Arlington,
As with its changes in land use, Lexington's recent Bedford, Belmont, Burlington, Lincoln, Waltham,
population changes have been subtle. Initially, one Winchester and Woburn—and Concord, which does
may focus on the size of the population, i.e. the total not abut Lexington but with whom we often make
number in the population. Is it increasing or de- comparisons.
creasing? However, the components of the popula-
-- tion, such as the age groups, are more important than Total Population
its size. Lexington's total population peaked at 31,886 people
in 1970. As of the 1990 Census (See Glossary), the
Other population clhacacteristics, such as income, population is down to 28,974 people.
occupation, education, family types and sizes, are
important and will be analyzed in other volumes in Lexington's peak periods of growth occurred in the
the Socio-Economic Characteristics series. The other decades following World War I and World War
volumes planned for this series and their projected II—luring the economic prosperity of the twenties
titles, at this writing, are: and fifties.
Volume 2: Economic Characteristics
Volume 3: Transportation Characteristics Lexington's greatest growth spurt occurred during
Volume 4: More Population Characteristics:Race, the fifties. From 1950 to 1960, Lexington's popula-
Mobility, Ancestry, Language tion grew by 10,356 people, a 59 percent increase.
Volume 5: Housing That decade was the peak for home building con-
The order of production of the reports, and their struction; 30 percent of the housing now in
titles, may change. Lexington was built during that decade.
Introduction Lexington's total population has experienced some
Population changes in response to economic condi- extreme changes. Its 10,356 increase between 1950
tions and changes in transportation technology and and 1960 was the fourth highest numerical increase
facilities. Job opportunities are the major factor in among the 70 changes in total population experienced
population change. Housing opportunities are the by the 10 communities in the study area between
next most important factor. 1920 and 1990. Lexington's 2,407 decrease between
1970 and 1980 was the fourth highest numerical
If we accept that economic development, job oppor- decrease by communities in the study area in the
tunities, transportation facilities, travel time, and same time period.
Population ix Summary
Births and Deaths, Mobility Age Groups
The total population of an area changes because of Changes in age groups are a key to understanding
two factors: many other changes and issues. Many governmental
1. the difference between the number of births activities, and many private businesses, serve particu-
and the number of deaths, which demographers lar age groups.
call net natural change, and
2. the difference between the number of people As adults move through their life cycle—from young
who moved into and out of the area, which single adults,through marriage and family formation,
demographers call net mobility, child raising, and the "empty nester" stage before
retirement—their housing needs, shopping patterns
During the fifties and sixties there was a significant and income levels change. Those changes impact
net natural change in population in Lexington-2,366 both businesses and government services.
more births than deaths in the fifties, and 1,848 more
births than deaths in the sixties. In the seventies and Younger Age Groups
eighties the net natural change did not affect the Lexington's percentage (5.46) of its total population
population appreciably. There were only 1,222 more in the children under 5, pre-school age group is the
births than deaths in the seventies, and only 46 more second lowest, and is tied with Belmont, among
births than deaths in the eighties. The recent experi- communities in the study area. Lexington's high
ence reflects both a higher death rate because of an housing costs and its low percentage of rental hour-
older population and a lower birth rate. ing, or reasonably priced condominiums, discourage
first home buyers and other young families.
Mobility is closely tied to changes in housing con-
struction and employment. The fifties was Lex- The 4,630 children in the 5-17, school-aged, group
ington's biggest homebuilding period and the begin- in 1990 is the second lowest number in Lexington
pings of the Route 128 suburban job growth. in 40 years, and is only about half of the 9,902
peak in 1970. (This age group has increased since
The negative net mobility in the seventies did not the 1990 US Census.)
result from demolition of houses. In fact, in an odd
phenomenon, the number of housing units actually Lexington's rank, compared to other communities
increased—although at a slower rate than in the in the study area, in the 5-17 age group, is re-
fifties and sixties—while the population declined! versed from the under 5 age group. Lexington has
Nor did it result from declining job opportunities. the second highest percentage (15.98%) of its total
In fact, the seventies and eighties were periods of population in the 5-17 group. Due to high housing
nearly explosive job growth both in Lexington and in costs, many parents move into Lexington with
surrounding communities within easy commuting school aged children, rather than having children
distance of Lexington. born here.
The key to population change in Lexington in the In the percentage of total population in the 18-24 --
seventies and eighties was its young population. A age group, Lexington's rank among study area
generation of children graduated from the schools communities reverses again from second highest in
and "graduated" right out of town—unable to live in the school aged group to second lowest in 18-24,
Lexington because of high housing costs. exceeded only by Lincoln. Lexington has a low
percentage in part because it has very few apart-
Male/Female Distribution ments of a type, or price range, that non-college
Women live longer than men. 55 percent of the 18-24 year olds would occupy.
Lexington residents over the age of 30 are females;
62 percent of the people 65 years old and over are Adult Age Groups
females; 71 percent of the people 75 years old and Lexington's 11.45 percent of total population in
over are females; and almost 80 percent of the people the 25-34 age group, with its newlyweds and
85 years old and over are females. parents in the prime child bearing years, is last in
the study area. Although Lexington has a dispro-
portionately high percentage of single family
Summary x Population
homes, they are out of the price
range of most first home buyers
in the 25-34 age group. Elderly Population., Lexington
Historically Lexington has been 1950 to 1990
attractive to the 35-49 age s'c –2
group—parents in their prime
child raising years, with school
aged children. Parents have
more income and often move up 4.000
to a larger, more expensive '5%
house. Lexington's 24.67 percent
in this age group is second in the
rb
study area exceeded only by Con-
cord's 23.78 percent. x3
000 o
R y
The 18.54 percent in the 50-64 N r,► 10%
age group in Lexington is nearly 0 711
half again greater than the 12.94 z z000
statewide percentage. Lexington o'
has the highest percentage in this •
•• a
age group in the study area.
Older Age Groups 1000
The three older age
groups—above 65 years—are they
most rapidly growing in .._� 3�
Lexington. Together, the three 0 0%
groups, i.e. all persons 65 and 1950 1960 1970 1960 1990
over, increased by 42 percent Legend
since 1980 and 93 percent since 111 65+ 75+ ❑ 85+
—O— Percent 65+ + Percent 75+ —■— Percent 85+
1970. The 2.48 percent of
Lexington's population that is 85
or more places it first among the
10 communities in the study area.
in the 35-49 age group. In all the age groups that
Comparison to Study Area— are 50 and higher, Lexington has either the first,
A Pattern of Extremes second or third highest percentage.
When compared to the other nine communities in
the study area, Lexington is at the extremes in Persons Per Household
every age group. Lexington has either the highest There has been a dramatic decrease in the number
or next highest percentage or the lowest or next of persons per household (See Glossary) in
lowest percentage in every age group. The one Lexington from 1950. That explains how the total
exception is the 75-84 age group where Lexington population can decline while the number of hous-
is third highest. ing units increased. The reduction in the number
of persons per household is almost entirely due to
Also noteworthy is that Lexington bounces from fewer persons in the younger age groups.
one end of the percentage scale to the other in the
younger age groups. Lexington has a low percent- Median Age
age in the under 5 age group,is highest in the 5-17 Lexington's median age (41.6) is much higher than
age group, next to lowest in the 18-24 age group, the United States (32.9) or Massachusetts and
lowest in the 25-34 age group, then second highest Middlesex County (both 33.6). Many of the
Population xi Summary
communities with higher median ages are retire- Lexington needs to be alert to the potential for a
ment communities on Cape Cod. Lexington's rapid turnover in population in some neighbor-
median age is higher than any community with hoods. The usual situation is that as people
1,000 or more residents on "mainland"Massachu- progress through the stages of their life cycle,they
setts, i.e. not on Cape Cod. It is second state- move to different types of housing units that
wide, including Cape Cod, among communities correspond to the number of people in the house-
with 20,000 or more people and fourth statewide hold and their physical capabilities. Lexington has
among communities with 10,000 or more people. a different pattern than normal in that one set of
people has stayed in one type of housing for a long
The changes in the median age in Lexington have time. A neighborhood may go through a period —
been significant increasing 10.4 years in the 20 with few young families and children. It may
years since 1970. In only 20 years, the town suddenly change character as older residents move
changed from a place where one-half of the popu- out and a wave of new,younger families move in.
lation was less than the age of 30,to a place where
in 1990 one-half of the residents are more than 40. Policy Choices
While the Town may not have policies on its ._..
Service and Policy Implications population composition, its land development and
Analysis of age groups is important because many housing policies clearly affect it. The type of
Town services,and business products and services, housing built, or not allowed to be built, has a
are oriented to specific age groups. In 1990, for great influence on the population composition.
the first time, there were more people who are 65
and over than there were school aged children. How pro-active should the Town be in promoting
housing that attracts, or retains, certain age
Population projections must be made cautiously to groups? There has been support for promoting
avoid: housing for younger people,particularly those who
• overbuilding facilities for populations that grew up in Lexington, graduated from its schools,
never appear, or and cannot afford to live in the town. Is there
• failing to plan for growth and failing to provide support for increased housing opportunities tai-
adequ ate facilities for unanticipated population bored to the needs of an older population?
groups.
How effective can the Town be in influencing
If it is to provide housing that matches the changes population composition. There are powerful
in its population characteristics, Lexington needs market forces—in the regional economy and the
more housing units suitable for its now numerous regional housing market—that limit the effective-
smaller households. However, as the Planning ness of public actions. —
Department's report, Land Use Change in the
Eighties, noted, Lexington has choices in its land One policy issue is whether the Town even wants
use policies and zoning practices. to be pro-active in influencing its population —
composition. Should the Town attempt to inter-
There is no land in Lexington that is now zoned, vene? Should the Town alter its current set of
with development potential remaining, for that type policies, that encourage certain types of housing,
of housing. A change of zoning district, requiring and discourage other types of housing? Should the
a two thirds vote of the Town Meeting will be Town take no action—leaving its current set of
required for each new development of housing policies in place? —
units suitable for small households. As rezoning is
a discretionary, political decision, it is difficult to
project how many new developments the Town
Meeting will approve and what the effects on the
town's demographic characteristics will be.
Summary xii Population
Introduction
information on birth and death rates was obtained
"The census contains such a mountainous ` from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health.
wealth of information that no one ever
mines it completely. At best we can only The Planning Department has a relatively complete
tunnel in here and there, hoping to pull out set of US Census data for 1980 and a representative
some of the riches." set of data from the 1970 and 1960 Censuses. We
Analysis with Local Census Data - supplemented the information on hand in the Depart-
Portraits of Change, by Dowell Myers , ment with census data from the Brandeis University
/ Library, which is one of 12 university libraries in
Massachusetts that are official repositories for United
The US Census States Census Data. The Brandeis University Library
The United States Decennial Census of Population has a complete set of United States Census reports.
and Housing is conducted by the US Census Bureau
on April 1 of the first year' in the decade. Although Historically, census data on each state has been
other surveys are taken at various times by private available in paper form. In recent years, such as
polling organizations and government agencies, the 1980 and 1990, additional data, beyond the most
US Census is the most elaborate, systematic and commonly used data, has been available on computer
complete "survey" taken. Due to its scope, it pro- tape and microfiche. The United States Census
vides information that is not available from any other Bureau has begun to make census reports available
source. on compact diskettes (CD ROM). The CD ROM
technology makes the data more accessible and
The US Census collects basic data on population and allows more efficient storage and retrieval of large
housing through its count of every person, house- volumes of data.
hold, and housing unit in the United States. The
Census Bureau asks questions about everyone and US Census Methodology
every housing unit on its "short form". The informa- The reader should be alert to the precise terminology
tion derived from those answers is called "complete that the US Census Bureau uses. For instance, one
count" or "100-percent data". table may refer to "all dwelling units" and another to
"occupied dwelling units"—the difference being
The Census Bureau also asks other questions of a vacant dwelling units. Not all persons live in "dwell-
sample of the total population on its "long form". ing units" because some people live in "institutional
The size of the sample varies, but, in general, it is housing" or "group quarters" (See Glossary).
about one household out of every six in the United
States. Sampling is done to lower costs and reduce There is a glossary of the more important terms at
the public's burden of responding. The information the end of this Report. Most US Census publications
resulting from the sample questions is statistically include a definition of terms. Both the Planning
weighted to represent the total population. The Department and Cary Library have copies (including
Census Bureau refers to these results as "sample their terminology) of the US Census Bureau's:
data".2 Summary Population and Housing Characteristics,
1990 CPH-1 that has complete count data
The data that was collected and analyzed for this Summary Social, Economic and Housing Charac-
Report is taken primarily from the 1950, 1960, 1970, teristics, 1990 CPH-5 that has sample data
1980, and 1990 United States Decennial Census.
Limited information from the 1930 and 1940 United
States Decennial Census was also analyzed. The
There are important differences between the United Each table in that publication will be printed in its
States Decennial Census and a local town or city original form without analysis or interpretation.
census. The local censuses are usually conducted Although not all of the data elements in these tables
annually and list each person, address, and precinct were analyzed in this volume, those chosen are
(in a town)or ward (in a city). The Lexington Town presented to illustrate the data that is important for
Census is conducted on an annual basis; the United analyzing demographic changes over a period of
States Decennial Census of Population and Housing time.
is conducted every ten years.
Presenting these tables in their original form:
The information obtained from these censuses cannot a. allows others to examine the enormous
be compared to one another because of different amount of data on population and age
counting methods and effective dates. The effective groups not analyzed in this volume;
date of the Town Census is January 1 of each year; b. assembles in one place, all the data that the
the effective date of the Decennial Census is April 1 Planning Department had to locate;
of the first year in each decade (e.g., 1980, 1990). c. permits analysis of the data, by other
researchers, for purposes that may be quite
One difference in the methodology employed in the different than those of a public agency; and
Town Census and the US Census is particularly d. establishes a"benchmark" for future analy-
important. The US Census counts people where they sis of demographic change. Presumably
are living and physically located on a certain date the Planning Department in the year 2002
(April 1). The Town Census counts people at their can continue this analysis without having
usual place of residence on January 1. For example, to recreate the data from prior years.
a student away at college would be counted by the
US Census in the community in which the college is The Study Area
located. The Town Census includes all residents of To help the reader, the report presents information
the town in the total population figure. Thus some about Lexington in the context of a "study area" of
young Lexington residents, who are included in the its abutting communities--Arlington, Bedford,
Town Census, are enumerated in the US Census as Belmont, Burlington, Lincoln, Waltham, Winchester
living in Amherst, Cambridge, Ann Arbor, etc. and Woburn, and Concord, which does not abut
Lexington is notably under-represented in the 18-24 Lexington but with whom we often make compari-
age group for that reason. sons. For further context, the report also includes
data on Middlesex County and the State. Without
In contrast, Waltham, which has two colleges, and these comparisons, the reader would not know if a
Concord, which has several preparatory (boarding) particular piece of data about Lexington was high,
schools has "non-residents" included in its US low, significant or normative. Figure 1, showing
Census figures. Students in those two communities the study area, provides a "Lexocentric" view of the
help to offset the number of their own permanent universe.
residents who are away at school or college.
The study area covers approximately 122.5 square
The US Census also counts people who live in miles - roughly 80,700 acres - and its municipalities
"group quarters", such as the Metropolitan State range in size from Concord's 24.9 to Belmont's 4.7
Hospital, the Middlesex County Sanatarium, and the square miles. The study area has 273,452 people.
state prison in Concord. The size and location of the study area offers a
perspective of the historical development of the
Additional Information communities and of one powerful --
The information displayed in the charts, graphs and force—suburbanization (See Glossary). The report
tables in this Report is drawn from a series of tables devotes attention to the study area to show the trends
too lengthy to be included here. These tables are in at work in this area that affect Lexington.
a separate publication available at Cary Library and
at the Planning Department office. It is: The Study Area—Growth in the Northwest Sector
Technical Supplement to Socio-Economic Char- Regional geographers have developed a "sector" —
acteristics of Lexington, Volume 1: Population theory of growth—that similar patterns of growth
Introduction 2 Population
occur in defined sectors of metropolitan areas. The World War II when Route 128 was built and Route
—' "northwest" sector of the Greater Boston area is 2 was reconstructed to expressway standards. Prior
defined by the communities from Cambridge roughly to World War II, the towns now beyond Route 128,
along Route 2 to Concord and beyond. The north- i.e. Lincoln, Bedford, Burlington and Concord, were
—. west sector has developed with high incomes and small truck farming communities. Lexington was a
socio-economic status exceeded only by the western quiet, less developed suburb.
sector—Brookline, Newton, Wellesley, Weston,
Dover, Wayland and beyond. Like metropolitan areas throughout the United States,
Greater Boston has been decentralizing and
Depending on their location relative to Boston and suburbanizing. The construction of Route 128, the
— the time period in which their initial major growth reconstruction of Route 2 to expressway standards
occurred,the communities in our study area have had (and other nearby links in the regional expressway
different characteristics in the past but are becoming system such as Route 93, Route 495 and the Massa-
_ more similar. Changes in chusetts Turnpike) has
transportation technol- made communities on, or
ogy—from steel wheel adjacent to, Route 128
— (railroad and street car)to The Study Area significant centers for em-
rubber wheel (automobile ployment, shopping, en-
and truck)—have had a m
Burlin on tertainent and housing.
— powerful effect on the Bedford Woburn The "pull", or effect, of
development pattern in the Boston and Cambridge,
study area. Changes in the core cities, on the
the technology of the study area communities is
transmission of informs- 411111. diminishing. Other re-
tion may have important ports in this series will
effects in the next decade show the changes in
— and century. Lexington in relation to
IN, the other communities in
Arlington, Belmont and41the study area in such
Whi
— Winchester are older sub- factors as residential den-
urban towns originally s i t y, employment,
dependent on rail access, Concord jobs/housing unit ratio,
— by railroad and street car, Lincoln labor force characteristics,
to Boston and Cambridge. Winchester housing characteristics,
These "street car" suburbs Lexington Waltham Arlington commutation patterns and
are significantly smaller the like.
in size, and have higher Belmont
residential densities,based As the communities in the
T on walking distance to rail Figure 1 study area become more
lines, than the other corn- oriented to the Route 128
munities in the study area. Their peak periods of suburban belt, it can be anticipated that their popula-
growth occurred prior to World War II. At that tion characteristics will become increasingly similar.
time, Waltham and Woburn were important manufac- For example, Waltham and Woburn, the two for-
turing centers separate from Boston. These two merly, primarily blue collar, manufacturing cities,
formerly "blue collar" cities are becoming increas- now have joined the suburban towns in having levels
— ingly middle class and suburban. of income and educational attainment that are higher
than the state wide average. Since World War II,
The five other towns (Lexington, Lincoln, Concord, two colleges, Brandeis and Bentley, have located in
— Bedford and Burlington—all of which are on, or Waltham. "Knowledge based", "high tech" compa-
beyond Route 128), are more distant from Boston nies are major factors in the economic base of both
and Cambridge. They are auto-oriented suburbs that cities as well as in the suburban towns.
— did not experience significant growth until after
Population 3 Introduction
The analysis in this Report—comparing Lexington The population data for Waltham, with its two
and its abutting towns and cities—is modeled after colleges, and Concord, with its preparatory schools,
the Planning Board's 1984 Housing report. include students residing in dormitories. The popula-
Lexington is the principal focus of the reports and tion and housing characteristics of Bedford and
the amount of information about other communities Lincoln are affected by US Air Force personnel
will be limited, and analyzed less thoroughly than the living in military housing at Hanscom Field.
data about Lexington. Lexington and Lincoln were the only communities in
April, 1990 that did not have general hospitals in
We do not intend to devote much attention to analy- which patients would have been enumerated with the
sis of other communities but some of them have general population. The Metropolitan State Hospital —
characteristics that, when combined with US Census (affecting Lexington and Waltham) and Choate
methodology, are worth noting here and in the Hospital in Woburn have closed since then.
analysis in the reports.
1. The US Census conducts other censuses at other times during the decade. For instance, it conducts a Census of Wholesale and
Retail Trade, Service Industries, Manufactures every five years, for years ending in "2" and "7". It conducts sample surveys
monthly, quarterly and annually for a variety of economic surveys.
2. The Census Bureau goes to great lengths to prevent disclosure of information about individuals or households.Data is presented
in aggregate form about groups large enough so that the confidentiality of information about individuals or households is not
compromised.
Introduction 4 Population —
1. TOTAL POPULATION
Suburbanization and Population Change
Analysis of a community's total population In the "modern era" suburbanization has been the
provides a general overview of the broadest most powerful force in Lexington's population
population trends. Other sections of this change. Lexington's total population and those in
report, that deal with the components of the other communities in the study area, reflect the
population, i.e. age groups, provide greater various stages and types of suburbanization the
insight into population change. For town has experienced.
example, the total population could remain
the same—giving the appearance of little The construction in the 1850s of a railroad line
change. However one age group could connecting Lexington to Boston improved trans-
increase rapidly—offsetting a rapid decrease portation access to the larger region and started
in another age group. Thus, important the era of suburbanization.
population change could be masked by an
apparently stable total population. The period after the Civil War was Lexington's
first"suburban"period as houses were built within
walking distance of the five railroad stations that
Lexington's population in 1790, the date of the first
Federal Census was 941 people. Historians estimate
Lexington's population was about 750 persons in Lexington's Population
1775. Figures 3-5 show the total population since 1900-1990
1650. The populations from 1650 through 1780 are 35,000
estimates taken from Charles Hudson's History of
Lexington. The total populations from 1790 to 1990 30.000
are from the US Census.
:;i:ci;3:i:i:i:
_ °°There were periods of slow growth following the •":11 ___
Revolutionary War. Commenting on the period from
1783 to 1830, Hudson observed:
20000 ---;,:µ,,
"But there were causes which operated
against the increase of population. A con-
is 000
siderable number who had served in the �„:;,„::�;,;;;,;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;,,�,::::;;,;::;;;;:::;;;;;_,:
army,
from om thetown,
did not
return
ton
•
•
Lexington e n
0
to become o e Pr
ane t citizens
•
10
,000
- i: [:1;
and others who had resided in town during •••
=1111::",s €illi1 ii=[ ... .....:....::.:.........
.iaat•;;err;��;;;-�;µ
the war, left the place, - :,£_;;, , , •„ , , ,, 3,,,,.11.=;; _ ;;,==1ii1i111iii
owing to the de ,,;;;;
5,000 •••••••:,•,:•',:-•-•':-•• € •'• 1:�:;-;:••:•:•:;•.pressed state of business and pecuniary ,°.:•:•__•°,:•
:•
.....
embarrassments, ;,,,,,• ; ;;; ;;;;;;,; ;
to seek their fortunesr.,:::: ; ::-;: :;:::::::.; ;;;::;:;::: ;;; ;;;;_;::
elsewhere. These causes served to keep the 0 ::::::::::::.:::-:-;::;:_ ;;; •;:
_. population nearly stationary for a consider- 1900 1910 N20 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
able period.”
Figure 2
Lexington's Population Lexington's Population
The Seventeenth Century The Eighteenth Century —
3,500 3,500
3,000 3,000
2,500 2,500
2,000 zo _
1,500 1,500
1,000 1,000
...........—
;:-iii-1"'°--''''•`iis ?';:::±•::::;;:�s:s ,:;•,:;:±a;;±s:s::•
500 •
€€€1-€i;ii;iili;li€€iii€;€::: ,:
500
±€::i€±±±::,r•:;;;�::±,±±€€:�±,iii;;ii€sii:s€€±€€€€i::€i;iii;€€€€-1i€ii€ii•::€€€€€€€i:€:i
€s-::111:€;�81111;1:;€�:ii: €iii`s;r$;;,,,,,;;;;;,"-€��
,:•••-:: ¢:¢-;,: ;;: .. ss t ii;€;€ii€ssi;:€is€ i€3i€i€€s;3i€:;i€€€-:i's:i+1111€i
0
_......._..........._•,,,_:........... ................ ,,. •..". ::::;:::::.:�:::;;:;;�t�;:;::::::;:;;::-::rsi:3?i:::::a:�sm.:±s�at€€ii —
1600 1610 1620 1630 1640 1650 1660 1670 1680 1690 1700 1710 1720 1730 1740 1750.1760 1770 1780 1790
Figure 3 Figure 4 —
Lexington's Population provided service to Boston. Street railway(trolley
car) service, started @1890 provided additional
The Nineteenth Century connections to surrounding communities. Hudson
3,500
commented:
"While Lexington,during this period of nearly
3,000 ',:::- half a century, has maintained its rural and
nin=- semi-rural character,while its manufactures are
proportionately little greater than they were in
2,500 • 1868, it has nevertheless been deeply influ-
mr1-- ~::n:== s ==_ _ enced by these great national changes, and is
`: •••'--'; ;;
Numerical Change in Total Population Percentage Change in Total Population
lz o0o Lexington 1900 to 1990 Lexington 1900 to 1990
70%
10.000
60%
8,000
50%
6.00040%
4,000
1..1111r1 I
-
2.000
20%
I
'..._.,: ii
tt3,[tt;s ':€iisa:� I ':`,:`iii liiii" I - I
Ia
as<•=:::: >==i;iiii;"s '"..".""".". iiiii:;":':i i;;- a:s;=:;is! ii:iiii"iF .ii ii;is i'siis
'iiiiiii'si'si i3iii-iii? ::::ti;a: :......: :: :::,s::;
10% '??iii::;;;;:I:a:a[asst' ' I:::::"::::::
' ' a ..............
-2,000
-4.000 10%
1910-1920 1930-1940 1950-1960 1970-1980 1 1910-1920 1 1930-1940 1 1950-1960 1 1970 1980 1
1900-1910 1920-1930 1940-1950 1960-1970 1980-1990 1900-1910 1920-1930 1940-1950 1960-1970 1980-1990
Figure 6 Figure 7
creased taxation, that have brought grave place of employment of most Lexingtonians
responsibilities to her officials, and have changed from Boston and Cambridge in the earlier
presented many perplexing problems to the suburban years to the suburbs in the 1980s and
consideration of her town meetings." 1990s.
The 1920s started the "automotive" suburban era Lexington had a steady increase in population
that has continued to this day. Initially town from 1900 to 1970 and then a decline in
streets, such as Massachusetts Avenue, Lowell population. Figure 6 shows the numerical change
Street and Concord Avenue provided connections in the population; Figure 7 shows the percentage
toward Boston. Route 2 was constructed as a four change in the population.
lane, undivided highway (similar to Route 2 west
of Route 128) in the 1930s. The comparison of Lexington's total population
with that of other communities in the study area
A different type of"automotive"suburban era was begins in 1920, the beginning of the "automotive"
_. launched with the initial construction of Route 128 suburban area. Communities closer to Boston,
in the 1950s and the reconstruction of Route 2 to such as Arlington, Winchester, and Belmont (and
expressway standards and the widening of Route Lexington to a lesser extent)were already well into
128 to eight lanes during the 1960s. Those trans- their suburban phase based on rail (both railroad
portation improvements launched a new type of and street car) service.
suburbia as employment and retail shopping
decentralized. (Volume Two [tentative number], Peak Population
Economic Characteristics, in the Socio-Economic Lexington's total population peaked at 31,886
Characteristics Series will trace the growth in people in 1970.As of the 1990 Census,the popula-
employment and commercial development in tion is down to 28,974 people.
Lexington and the surrounding study area.) The
Population 7 1. Total Population
Peak Current Peak
Peak Population Year
Burlington
Bedford Woburn State 6,016,425 6,016,425 1990
.
,,L—:,,,,
,i1"1',- i z County 1,398,468 1 398 468 1990
£?i s£s
_ Arlington 53,524 4:::::
1970
�/ 3 1970
/ Belmont 24 720 1960
lai� 1 28,715 ,
/ /.i Burlington 23,486 _ 23,302 1980
lini
Concord /
Concord 17,076 17,076 1990
y _
Lincoln Winchester Lexington 31,886 28,974 1970
Lexington Waltham Arlington Lincoln 7,666 7,666 1990
Belmont `--
Waltham 61,582 57,878 1970
1960 1970 Winchester 22,269 20,267 1970 —
Woburn 37,406 35,943 1970
• 1980 Il 1990 Study Area 262,274 244,478 1970
Figure 8
Table 1
In general, the timing of a community's peak and Middlesex County reached their peak popula- —
growth periods correlates to its distance from tion levels in 1990. See figure 8 and table 1.
Boston. The year in which a community reached
its peak population is another indicator of the Lexington has had some of the largest numerical —
correlation between timing of growth and distance changes in population among the communities in
from Boston. As figure 8 shows,Belmont reached the study area. A numerical change is more
its peak population in 1960; the middle ring of significant than a percentage change because some —
suburbs,including Lexington,reached their peak in of the communities more distant from Boston had
1970. The outer ring of suburbs in the study area such a small base population increase in their
reached their peak later: Burlington in 1980 and earlier days that a large percentage increase —
Concord and Lincoln in 1990. Bedford is an resulted. Lexington's 10,356 increase between
exception to the rule among the towns more 1950 and 1960 was the fourth highest increase in
distant from Boston, reaching its peak "early", in the area exceeded only by Arlington's 17,4291920-
1970. 1930 increase and slightly higher increases by
Belmont,10,999 in 1920-1930,and Woburn,10,722
The year in which a community reached its peak in 1950-1960. —
population is indicative of general population
trends. As shown in table 1, Belmont, closest to Lexington's 2,407 decrease between 1970 and 1980
Boston, reached its peak population in 1960. (See was the fourth highest in the area in all decades
also figure 8.) Lexington's population, along with studied exceeded only by Arlington's 5,305 and —
five other communities, and the whole study area Waltham's 3,382 1970-1980 decreases and
peaked in 1970. Three communities more distant Arlington's 3,589 1980-1990 decrease.
from Boston peaked later—Burlington in 1980, —
and Lincoln and Concord in 1990. Both the State
1. Total Population 8 Population
Numerical Change in Total Population Percentage Change in Total Population
Lexington 1900 to 1990 Lexington 1900 to 1990
12,000 70%
10,000
60%
8,000 50%
_. 6,000 40%
4,000
30%
:a ::............ .::::::::::.:�::::::::::2,000
20% 11111 Siliiiiiiii 'si'siiiii ''si(ii-sf
faro:iiiiafi _..£.£ss.....: �&i9fFfffE .............. ...:......... ......... ....,....._.
— _...,.,.._„
.........,,..,
MI 10% 'iiiiiiiiiiiiiilfaafafa:ffl :Iii; iaiiiii iii l ::
-2,000 +::::::::::: ............. ...........:.. .,...,....... .. ata:i=:;
REMi
-4,000
I 1910-1920 1 I 1930-1940 11950-1960 11970-1980 I 10% I 1910-1920 11930-1940 I 1950-I
950-1960 11970-1980
1900-1910 1920-1930 1940-1950 1960-1970 1980-1990 1900-1910 1920-1930 1940-1950 1960-1970 1980-1990
Figure 6 Figure 7
creased taxation, that have brought grave place of employment of most Lexingtonians
responsibilities to her officials, and have changed from Boston and Cambridge in the earlier
presented many perplexing problems to the suburban years to the suburbs in the 1980s and
consideration of her town meetings." 1990s.
— The 1920s started the "automotive" suburban era Lexington had a steady increase in population
that has continued to this day. Initially town from 1900 to 1970 and then a decline in
streets, such as Massachusetts Avenue, Lowell population. Figure 6 shows the numerical change
— Street and Concord Avenue provided connections in the population; Figure 7 shows the percentage
toward Boston. Route 2 was constructed as a four change in the population.
lane, undivided highway (similar to Route 2 west
of Route 128) in the 1930s. The comparison of Lexington's total population
with that of other communities in the study area
A different type of"automotive"suburban era was begins in 1920, the beginning of the "automotive"
launched with the initial construction of Route 128 suburban area. Communities closer to Boston,
in the 1950s and the reconstruction of Route 2 to such as Arlington, Winchester, and Belmont (and
expressway standards and the widening of Route Lexington to a lesser extent)were already well into
Y 128 to eight lanes during the 1960s. Those trans- their suburban phase based on rail (both railroad
portation improvements launched a new type of and street car) service.
suburbia as employment and retail shopping
decentralized. (Volume Two [tentative number], Peak Population
Economic Characteristics, in the Socio-Economic Lexington's total population peaked at 31,886
Characteristics Series will trace the growth in people in 1970.As of the 1990 Census,the popula-
employment and commercial development in tion is down to 28,974 people.
Lexington and the surrounding study area.) The
Population 7 1. Total Population
Peak Current Peak
Peak Population Year —
Bnrlington
Bedford Woburn State 6,016,425 6,016,425 1990
k
---• _ County 1,398,468 1,398,468 1990 —
le Arlington 53,524 44,630 1970
/ 4-/ Bedford 13,513 12,996 19
40 1960
28 715
/ 1 Belmont24,720
Ilk :I Burlington 23,486 23,302 1980
Concord �ti%
Concord 17,076 17,076 1990
y _
Lincoln Winchester Lexington 31,886 28,974 1970
Lexington Waltham Arlington Lincoln 7,666 7,666 1990
Belmont —
Waltham 61,582 57,878 1970
1960 VA 1970 Winchester 22,269 20,267 1970
Woburn 37,406 35,943 1970
• 1980 ill 1990 Study Area 262,274 244,478 1970
Figure 8
Table 1
In general, the timing of a community's peak and Middlesex County reached their peak popula- —
growth periods correlates to its distance from tion levels in 1990. See figure 8 and table 1.
Boston. The year in which a community reached
its peak population is another indicator of the Lexington has had some of the largest numerical
correlation between timing of growth and distance changes in population among the communities in
from Boston. As figure 8 shows,Belmont reached the study area. A numerical change is more
its peak population in 1960; the middle ring of significant than a percentage change because some —
suburbs,including Lexington,reached their peak in of the communities more distant from Boston had
1970. The outer ring of suburbs in the study area such a small base population increase in their
reached their peak later: Burlington in 1980 and earlier days that a large percentage increase —
Concord and Lincoln in 1990. Bedford is an resulted. Lexington's 10,356 increase between
exception to the rule among the towns more 1950 and 1960 was the fourth highest increase in
distant from Boston, reaching its peak "early", in the area exceeded only by Arlington's 17,4291920-
—
1970. 1930 increase and slightly higher increases by
Belmont,10,999 in 1920-1930,and Woburn,10,722
The year in which a community reached its peak in 1950-1960.
population is indicative of general population
trends. As shown in table 1, Belmont, closest to Lexington's 2,407 decrease between 1970 and 1980
Boston, reached its peak population in 1960. (See was the fourth highest in the area in all decades
also figure 8.) Lexington's population, along with studied exceeded only by Arlington's 5,305 and —
five other communities, and the whole study area Waltham's 3,382 1970-1980 decreases and
peaked in 1970. Three communities more distant Arlington's 3,589 1980-1990 decrease.
from Boston peaked later—Burlington in 1980, —
and Lincoln and Concord in 1990. Both the State
1. Total Population 8 Population
Similarities in Change in the Study Area
For seventy years, since World War I, the popula percentage Change in Population
tions in the study area communities have generally
increased or decreased together although there are 1920 to 1990
notable exceptions in individual communities. For 70%
example, the population of all 10 communities
60%
increased in the twenties, thirties, forties and
fifties; nine of the 10 communities increased 50%
during the sixties, and eight of the 10 declined in
both the seventies and eighties. Even though the 40%
communities tend to increase or decrease together,
there can be wide differences in the rate of that 30% —
increase or decrease.
20% +
The population of the State or Middlesex County +
did not decrease as the study area did,but experi-- 10% ♦ • tA
enced slow growth—relative to national trends.
Movement between geographic subareas in a larger -0% + ' s '
geographic area is an important part of population
change, particularly in a slow growth region like -10% I 19301-1940 I 19501960 I 19701980 1
the Northeast. A "mature, middle-ring" suburban 1920-1930 1940-1950 1960-1970 1980-1990
Legend
area, such as our study area, is now experiencing A Massachusetts + Middlesex County
slower rates of growth than other parts of Massa- ❑ Lexington ♦ Study Area
chusetts, e.g. Cape Cod, or other parts of
Middlesex County, e.g. the Route 495 belt. In the Figure 9
past, our study area had periods of more rapid
growth than the State or the Middlesex County
when higher density areas, such as Boston or Belmont gained 10,999 more than doubling its
Cambridge, lost population to suburbanization. population; Waltham gained 8,332, a 27 percent
increase. During the twenties, Lexington had its
In fact, population levels for the larger geographic second largest percentage increase in a decade,
areas, both the State and Middlesex County, adding 3,117 people, a 49 percent increase. The
continue to grow and have reached a peak at the study area had its highest percentage increase in
1990 Census levels. Continued small increases in any decade between 1920 and 1990.
the State and Middlesex County populations are
anticipated during the next decade. Lexington's greatest growth spurt occurred during
the fifties. From 1950 to 1960, Lexington's popu-
Figure 9 shows that the percentage increase in lation grew by 10,356 people, a 59 percent in-
Lexington's population was greater than that of crease. Analysis of births and deaths, (see next
Massachusetts and Middlesex County between chapter), indicates that most of the increase was
1920 and 1960. During the 1970s the rates of due to new residents moving into the town. That
growth were similar. Since 1970, Lexington's decade was the peak for home building construe-
population declined while those of the larger areas tion; 30 percent of the housing now in Lexington
either grew at a low rate or also declined but at a was built during that decade. An additional 7,990
slower rate than Lexington. people moved into the town, 3,930 people were
born in town, and 1,564 died. This resulted in a
Peak periods of growth occurred in the decades net increase of 10,356 which was the fourth largest
following World War I and World War II—during numerical increase in any of the 10 communities in
the economic prosperity of the twenties and fifties. the study area in any decade between 1920 and
Communities closer to Boston grew rapidly during 1990.
the twenties. Between 1920 and 1930, Arlington
gained 17,429 people, a 93 percent increase;
Population 9 1. Total Population
The fifties had the highest numerical growth for: Prior to 1970, the population of both the State and
• the study area - growing nearly one and a County followed essentially the same trends as the
study area communities. During the seventies
third times more than any other decade; population growth was slow. The State grew less
• seven of the ten communities in the study than one percent and the population in the County
area; (Arlington, Belmont and Waltham each actually decreased by two percent. By 1980 most
had its highest numerical increase in the of the communities in the study area had started to
twenties.) lose population—a trend that continued during the
eighties. The study area's population declined by _
• Middlesex County. 4.76 percent. Eight of the 10 communities lost
population. Lexington, with a 7.55 percent de-
Burlington's population nearly quadrupled during crease,lost more than the study area. The popula-
the fifties. Its population has doubled since 1960. tion of two communities more distant from Boston
Bedford and Lincoln, doubled their population still increased—Burlington by 6.85 percent and
during the fifties. Concord by 0.90 percent.
Populations continued to increase during the During the eighties, the populations of the State
sixties but not at the same rate as during the (+4.87%) and Middlesex County(+2.3%) contin-
fifties. The study area's total population grew 15 ued to move in an opposite direction from the
percent—versus 30 percent in the fifties. However, study area total (-2.13%). Eight of the 10 study
the population of communities more distant from area communities lost population, with the two
Boston did increase significantly. For example, closest to Boston, i.e. Arlington (-7.44%) and —
Bedford grew 71 percent (not nearly as high as Belmont (-5.29%) having the highest percentage
Burlington's 295 percent increase in the fifties), declines. Two of the communities most distant
and Burlington, Concord, and Lincoln grew by from Boston, i.e. Lincoln (+8.0%) and Concord
more than 20 percent. In comparison,Lexington's (+4.81%), were notable for their increases.
population increased by 15 percent, which was Lexington's population declined by 1.71 percent,
equal to the rate of increase in the study area. slightly less than the study area decline of -2.13
percent.
1. Total Population 10 Population
2. BIRTHS AND DEATHS, MOBILITY
As shown in figure 11 on the following page, during
Job opportunities and housing opportunities the fifties and sixties there was a significant net
are the principal reasons for population natural change in population in Lexington-2,366
movement into a community. During the more births than deaths in the fifties, and 1,848 more
1970s and 1980s both the number of births than deaths in the sixties. In the seventies and
housing units and the number of jobs in eighties the net natural change in population did not
Lexington increased, but more people moved affect the population as dramatically. There were
out of Lexington than moved in. How more births than deaths in both of these de-
could the town's population decrease while cades-122 more births than deaths in the seventies,
the number of housing units in town and only 46 more births than deaths in the eighties.
increased? The recent experience reflects both a higher date rate
because of an older population and a lower birth rate.
The total population of an area changes because of Net Mobility
two factors: The second major factor in population change is net
1. the difference between the number of mobility—the difference between the number of
births and the number of deaths, which people who moved into and out of an area. Demog-
demographers call net natural change, and
2. the difference between the number of
people who moved into and out of the
area, which demographers call net mobil- Births and Deaths
ity. Lexington 1950 to 1990
600-
Net Natural Change: Births and Deaths --
Lexington has good records on births. The infor- 400—
mation on deaths is less reliable because it is depends _
on a system in which the city or town clerk of the - _
community in which a person dies sends a copy of 200— - -
the death certificate to the decedent's city or town of
residence. While that system works fairly well, it is
not completely accurate. Complete data on deaths is ° 7 3 }}j£_.£ £x.....::.::.:..::.7777) .?.:.. :3:
33�£ �££3 �!1( � �3��� ���3,336��£33 3 3 �7��33 3££���3 3���������£�3
available only at the State Department of Public i1 1`' 111 # £ p si �
Health. Since information on a year-by-year basis is i :... 1 ,y1 X13,,,01141.;::.. �.
Y Y Y 1 # 11 ,il
-200—... ... #.£Y�3j3j�£ (IS 'i3 3"1“1""3".i:.1 .1 ;�,.
on paper records and is available only in the Depart- ,�1 , it+t•
ment's office in Boston, data was collected only
about Lexington and not about other communities in
aoo
the study area. 19521 1956 1 1960 1 1964 1 1968 I1972I 19761 19801 1984 1 1988
1950 1954 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990
Year
The greatest number of children, 554, born to Legend
Lexington residents was in 1957. The fewest number ❑ Actual Births ® Actual Deaths
Net Natural Change - - Average Deaths
_ of children born to Lexington residents was in 1975 Average Births
when 169 were born. The greatest number of
Lexington residents to die, 249, was in 1985; the Figure 10
fewest number of residents, 122, died in 1951.
Migration between regions is closely correlated to job
Net Natural Change opportunities. Mobility within a region is more
related to housing opportunities. Since travel
Lexington 1950 - 1990 time/distance to work, along with housing price, are
4.000
the two major determinants of moves within a region,
changes in employment are an important factor in
3.000— mobility within a region. They both have powerful
influences on population change in Lexington. The
2,000— Housing, Transportation and Economic volumes in
this Socio-Economic Characteristics series will look
l,000— at those factors more closely.
o In contrast to the data available on net natural change
i llljji}333113; 1 3113?#?li I�3;?!13 i's33 3 ! the information on
I1;,.1;..:_:� caused by births and deaths,
11
mobility is limited to the net change at the end of a
1'� iili!3ii='s ;11111 :i3>>' ime period. There is no central reliable source of
..,•.•........•.... :::a-:a.,,3i'r.?i 3i3iiiig33i3r;fi!
data on the names of every person who moved out or
—2.000 33
who moved into an area. Only the net result is _
available.
3.000
1950-1959 1960-1969 1970-1979 1980-1989
Legend The net result at the end of the time period masks the
❑ Births E Deaths volume of movement. For instance, a net change of
• Net Natural Change 500 people in a highly transient community, could
result from a huge turnover of population with nearly
Figure 11 equal numbers of people moving in and out. How-
ever the same net change of 500 people in another,
raphers use two terms, depending on the distance of stable community, could be the result of very little
the move, to describe the movement of people: movement.
• migration usually means a longer distance, from
one geographic region to another; tests include Decade Population Net Net
whether a new job or a new driver's license is Change Natural Mobility
involved; Change
• mobility usually means a shorter distance,within 1950-1959 10,356 2,366 7,990
one geographic region; it may be a change of 1960-1969 4,195 1,848 2,347
residential location without a job shift.
1970-1979 - 2,407 122 - 2,529
Suburbanization within a metropolitan area is an
example of mobility. Longer population movements, 1980-1989 - 505 46 - 551
such as from the 1930s Dust Bowl to California, or Table 2
of southern blacks to northern industrial cities are
examples of migration. Determining net mobility is a two step process.
Population movement in and out of Lexington neces- After determining the change in total population
sarily includes a combination of some migration, i.e. between two years, e.g. between 1950 and 1960, the
to and from another state directly to Lexington, and first step is to calculate the net natural change—the
mobility, i.e. to and from other Greater Boston difference between births and deaths. Net mobility
communities. Mobility is the more important factor is the difference between the total population change
in Lexington and, for simplicity, that term will be and the net natural change.
used in this Report to describe both types of move- To illustrate, let's look at the period between 1950
ment. and 1960 when Lexington had its most dramatic
2. Births and Deaths, Mobility 12 Population
–• change in population. During the fifties, Lexington
population increased by 10,356 people. In that Factors Causing Population Change
period there were 3,930 births and 1,564 deaths for
_.. a net natural change of 2,366. The difference Lexington 1950-1990
between the total increase of 10,356 people and the 12'000
net natural change of 2,366 is the net mobil- moo
— ity-7,990 people. That means that there were
nearly 8,000 more new residents who moved into 8,000
Lexington than residents who moved away from
— Lexington. 6.000
Mobility is closely tied to changes in housing con- 4,000
—
struction and employment. The fifties was Lex-
ington's biggest homebuilding period—with 30 2°000li....::::::::
< "ercent of all housin units n P g ow in Lexington built :::>::>::::>::
during that time—and the beginnings of the Route ° - ::::::>::»:l
—
128 suburban job growth.
-2,000 ME
The sixties were another decade of population 4,000
growth. There were 3,857 births and 2,009 deaths 1950-1959 1960-1969 1970-1979 1980-1989
for a net natural change of 1,848. The net mobil- Legend
ity—the difference between the total change in a NetTotal NatChural
in Population
Natural Change
— population, 4,195, and net natural change—was 0 Net Mobility
2,347.
Figure 12
--- The seventies and eighties were quite different.
Total population and the number of births decreased Fewer children were born in the later decades. The
and deaths increased slightly. The net natural change major reason was lower birth rates due to the influ-
-® in both decades (122 and 46) was very ence of birth control practices. Another reason in
small—particularly when compared to the fifties and Lexington is that there were fewer women in the
sixties. Most significant in these decades, especially prime child bearing ages living here. But births are
__ the seventies, is the number of people who moved part of net natural change and do not explain nega-
out of town. During the seventies, a net 2,529 tive or low net mobility.
residents and in the eighties, a net 551 moved out to
other communities. The key to population change in Lexington in the
seventies and eighties was its young population. A
As indicated above, periods of high housing con- major factor in the negative net mobility is that a
struction in the fifties and sixties resulted in higher generation of children graduated from the schools
net mobility. Periods of lower housing construction and "graduated" right out of town—unable to live in
in the seventies and eighties meant there was less Lexington because of high housing costs. Chapter
inward mobility in those periods. Four in this Report analyzes changes in age groups
which is a key to understanding population change in
The negative net mobility in the seventies did not Lexington and in most communities.
result from demolition of houses. In fact, in an odd
— phenomenon, the number of housing units actually Mobility is closely linked to a number of housing
increased—although at a slower rate than in the factors. Younger people are more likely to move
fifties and sixties—while the population declined! than older persons. Controlling for age, tenants are
-- Nor did it result from declining job opportunities. more likely to move than owners. The year the
In fact, the seventies and eighties were periods of housing was built and the duration of occupancy are
nearly explosive job growth both in Lexington and in other important factors. Lexington may be an
— surrounding communities within easy commuting example of the "retention of early occupant"phenom-
distance of Lexington. enon. The connection between various housing
—• Population 13 2. Births and Deaths, Mobility
factors and mobility will be developed further in the Year Lexington Study Lexington
Housing volume in this series (tentatively number Birth Area Rank in 10
five). Rate Birth Communities
Rate
Birth Rates
An important factor in net natural change is the 1990 .026 .025 4
number of births. That is influenced by the birth rate
and the number of women in the prime child bearing 1980 .024 .027 8 (tie)
age groups. 1970 .042 .048 10 (last)
Demographers usually analyze birth rates by compar- 1960 .065 .073 7
ing the number of births per year to the number of —
women between 15 and 44—the primary child 1950 .056 .051 2 (tie)
bearing ages. When we used that technique to
compare Lexington to the other communities in the Table 3
study area and to Massachusetts and Middlesex
County, the results were skewed by large cohorts of Fertility Ratio
teen age girls moving through the high schools in the Another common tool demographers use to compare
area. For instance, Lexington's birth rate appeared population is fertility ratios--the total number of
to drop noticeably in 1980 until we found that 24 children ever born to women in an area. As this
percent of the females in the 15-44 age group were ratio shows the ,past performance" of all women,
teen aged girls. While births to teen aged mothers is including those no longer in child bearing age
an important factor in some inner-city and rural parts groups, it is not a good basis for projecting future
of the country, it is not a significant factor in this birth rates.
suburban study area.
Nevertheless, the fertility ratios of women living in
To eliminate, this distortion, we limited the compari- Lexington can be compared to those of women in
son to women between 20 and 44. With that correc- Massachusetts. There is little notable in the data.
tion, Lexington's birth rates have a more regular Based on the 1990 census data, Lexington ranks third
relationship to the study area. Until 1990, in the study area (tied with Bedford) with a fertility
Lexington's birth rates had been below the study area ratio of 1.69 which is higher than the State (1.65),
average. The reader should not ascribe too much Middlesex County(1.58), and six other communities.
significance to table 3 because the birth rates indi-
cated below are for the years 1990, 1980, 1970,
1960, and 1950 only and are not for a decade.
As discussed later in this Report, with advances in its
computer systems, the Town is close to being able to
develop its own local birth rate tied to the age groups
of women between 15 and 44. That will permit
more accurate projection of future births in
Lexington.
2. Births and Deaths, Mobility 14 Population
3. MALE/FEMALE DISTRIBUTION
of housing on Hanscom Air Force Base and the
In Lexington, the percentage of females preparatory schools and the correctional facility in
increases in each of the older age groups. Concord.
Age Group Percentage
of Females Figure 13 shows a population "tree" comparing
65 and over 62 Lexington's male-female distribution with Massa-
75 and over 71 chusetts. There is generally little difference be-
1 85 and over 80 tween the two.The higher percentages of males in
their sixties and seventies in Lexington than in
Massachusetts can probably be attributed to men
who have had better access to quality health care
Comparing the number of males and females in an and careers in less hazardous occupations than
area is a traditional feature of a demographic their peers throughout Massachusetts.
analysis. The distribution of males and females is
available for Lexington from 1930 to 1990 Decen- Aging Affects Male-Female Distribution
nial Censuses,and for all communities in the study Statistically women live longer than men. As the
area (total population only) from 1950 to 1990, in population gets older, there will be more women
the tables published in the Technical Supplement to than men. In Lexington there is a continuing
Socio-Economic Characteristics of Lexington, trend toward more females than males in the older
Volume 1:Population. age groups. For example, 55 percent of the
Lexington residents over the age of 30 are females;
The number of males and females is roughly 62 percent of the people 65 years old and over are
comparable in the younger age groups—with females; 71 percent of the people 75 years old and
slightly more males than females in the youngest over are females; and almost 80 percent of the
age groups, changing to more females than males people 85 years old and over are females.
among those in their twenties. The percentage of
females increases for each five year age group Other communities in the study area display
thereafter becoming noticeably greater for those in similar trends toward slightly more females than
their sixties,seventies,eighties and nineties. There males. In 1990, 51 percent to 54 percent were
may be exceptions to this rule if there is an institu- females in most of the towns in the study area.
tion in the area such as a military base, an educa- Although Arlington,Belmont, and Winchester are
tional institution, a specialized medical care facil- not quite as "old" as Lexington, the number of
ity, or a correctional facility, that has a dispropor- females in those communities is noticeably higher
tionate number of males or females, than males.
Lexington does not have those types of institutions
and its male-female distribution is similar to state
and national patterns. The 1990 Census shows
that only Bedford and Concord, among communi-
ties in the study area, have more males than
females. This phenomenon is most likely because
Male-Female Distribution
Lexington and Massachusetts, 1990
!..:.!£:..,..€i,„. �•:i„„„J€i':.,,.,?�..,:...anw,'...,„..:..�,....;,:.r;n£ ..,€::£,.£.
.:
:
. # "?iiii „.., € . , -_:i;s'i£:i£ „ i£-
85 — • i„„„„,,,,..-.....,..•••n
. 1 • €£ ? u£: : u€f £ al£ .51,.331: M,f1.: : :5£ : igi.VI. '
.3s. 1.:..: 1,i : z
▪ Nlt• iNti ,.1 µ,,„1
€liiiaI •£it:,,�:.1..„,:.,.,.i.i:.?1,, 111s..,p::,,•,u:: ii::::.::::,.;:::: ,:€:..:::.
i:ii1i€° € i : H'i€ iiil"”. €' £ii € €€ ii„€3e5y75 to 84- €£„„ .i:-il £:n . € €€}i �,iii € : - „„ . „ ;� £i.... €
��i £ =ii €€€€ �ii,€€ � wi = , m :: i€ u,,'.£ss,£-r
. .
iiiiminiiimovign
...
MINMIMIONSIMNSI
li i1-- -•tri., .: vat l€€ii'i -
65 to 74- ' , , , , :;£:,, =iL - _
.. . , ,.::si i�,.i€1:�i��iiliilFi€€€: �'�x�€€€€, ids �•;'�. ;�.-
ilh ::u
:: ££ jj" ',moi �'rr. -'°• ..
id
SNIMPININSIMMISININISIMPII
• € i : ur,
•
35 to 49- i. °„ili? i i,ii , (' ; I i ,i
�
L';;:;:£3£,£3£3,3 3 s ilii:,::ii£££££££££'i'iiiailli€iiiti ' ''3€?€€€i l; hl€£� :i ' Whig€:�i!i:.
25 to 34- £� i.iiiiiii ',g-; a=-• €iii;-
Mireg•-�r---'•€1i i1u€;:is"ii i-�11€€�££€i'•€;��x,i}r-fi""`,�-is' €,'€�� ..
.........,...1.............1...:4.. gulpoirov -
`-§ €is-3",,,,,,,.....-..------,311,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,'££a8£
•, i.ti: ohmig.: :iii€i ' m'.hiiiisz ' .fii sai i,ii + i os,;. 7€ €il .
18 to 24- I ,i � � "_--.
i € ._ : •" sY .iial £
®.
's i€iri; l'„jii'iii�m il�' ,i :.„. £ l: : =-1.:•3„ i(i£1££iii€1M 11I€? ii ii„ii , i,i;£li £:l £ €.,i;„.i £ '€1£I£,,.:i.,
iC,tiii ,:1€€€€ €;,(:3£l•€ ,;£ '` s ;. .i "S . .. . .'T,i ,”€,1µa'„,i £i
€•"£i': :€:M.; ££iii €-✓iI:ii33i} ii%liiiii: ik€x€€ ,v.,.',
fit£ ” yBiu1 £i£€€ilia�l i:i:::ii ' '£ i£,iYn££1,i-£::,£,,€€ :', .
• - tt O € •. ' ie4iii I I i NF3iNH£r
_
IIIIIIIMII
• .„,wi:,„„£ i .„,.„.,;;; .m£€ ;tib€! i1„„:i £ u -
€ , ''.. i .
1 „ ,:. €i ';,i:;„; €i ;iiiiiiiiiii€.1£€: ii £ ;l€i€ € i € ii:
Under 5- i'4 4 +'v€i€ii£"=;viiiiM.S,iM ? 1ti_;iiom I i£ iii.
` -
' .-1 ?. .i£,i=: 1£ ii ,11i11igi.i. . ,,:ialt - =1,:5�€,%,
: 9€'i: :i , € € " €€€ 1;li€11g131 0111liM ££€ , .
,::. ;„i::,,,, li€i:i,ii:.•..� L141 '3,Ylji,. 0%,,,......,,...,‘,.,,,,,,,
—
; aJ ,,. ; r:i. :ii
80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Legend
Massachusetts-Female ' : Massachusetts-Male
Lexington-Female D Lexington-Male _
< Male Female >
Figure 13
3. Male/Female Distribution 16Population
4. AGE GROUPS
Age patterns in local areas often reflect a life-cycle
compared to the other nine
\(When model. Neighborhoods, or even whole towns, like
communities in the study area, Lexington is Lexington, with one predominant housing
at the extremes in every age group. type—large, single-family houses in Lexington's
Lexington has either the highest or next case—may go through life cycle stages. They may
highest percentage or the lowest percentage hold the same people for long periods of time,
in every age group. Further, in the younger experiencing a life cycle stage. That group of people
age groups, Lexington flips from one end of may then move on together—to be replaced by a
the percentage scale to the other —from younger age group.
last in one age group to the first in the next. ,
Tracking changes in age groups is one
of the most important parts of demo-
graphic analysis because it is a key to Age Group Distribution
understanding many other changes and Lexington and Massachusetts 1990
— issues. Many governmental activities,
and many private businesses, serve ,
s5+-
particular age groups. ,_
Changes in the number of school aged 75 to 84- ' t''n"'`:''°'`=
children are particularly significant to
municipalities. Expenses for public 65to74- „,.....,.........1:-.... ....
schools make up nearly half of ;, . :,n,:4 .? ? .
Lexington's 1994 Fiscal Year budget. - - $•;„?"?••,:,,!...,":..,:::£„?::._... ;£££??
50 to 64- f r m :,,.71 i::;i_ •�::: ; ££iI! 4 ”
__ Changes in the number of elderly areU ? £ .f ;_:?_ x'• �;u 'fr -
important for government services as ..-i. _ •:.:..
� £� uwell. 35to49 • :i:-i: :??_;; :::.i -::• a :,:1R , a°s1
iiiiiigng
£?£•
Chanes in the age groups of working ;;i=r„ ?':€'•;•iuii=ir;; x=if__
Changes g g P 25 to 34 •
age adults are meaningful not so much ..........................................;;
for the services government provides ,••• ? , , , ;;;,,
,, , ••.
but as indicators of changes in the 18 to 24 , :n : _-- _
school aged population and potential
- ,££,,,:–r:-, ??._••,:-
£subsequent changes inthe elderlypopo •- ?: „ ;_ £' ; ?„„,
Mations. As working age adults move - ;,,,,,< :=?:::?:._"-..••.•,,..
through life cycle changes—from
Under 5- µ s s s,s
young single adults, through marriage ;
and family formation, child raising,
15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00%
and the "empty nester" stage before
retirement—there are changes in hous-
Legend
Massachusetts h Lexington
ing needs, shopping patterns and in-
come levels that impact both business
and government services. Figure 14
A "dumbbell shape", i.e.
wide in two places con-
nected by a thin middle, is Life Cycle Age Groups _.
the prototypical "popula-
tion tree" (See Glossary) Lexington, 1950-1990
fora suburban town domi-
nated by families with
children. It shows large 10,000
numbers of children, a _
shortage of young adults
in their twenties, 8,000
disproportionately large II 101
numbers of adults in their
30's, 40's and 50's, and 6,000
few elderly. Lexington E
had that classic dumbbell
population tree in the fif- 4'000
ties but now has „ ., I 1 gi i
disproportionately large2,0001
numbers of elderly. In the
k Eu„1_
prototypical family ori- _.. €
ented, suburban town, the 0 wim
elderlymayhave moved
Undo r 5 ,I
to other communities or dam , E
sunnier climes where there 5-1 MEN 7,1 ",,,,,:-,1
WEA •ssEE ; —
is an abundance of apart- 18-14. ' = :'
ments and condominiums .. �
•
25-,4 ;.
illiiii
suitable for small house- v:a
holds. In Lexington, the 35-.9 ig ,,
elderlyhave stayed and
Y 50-04
form a significant part of a
the population. 65-'4. k —
Age Groups 1980 1990
There are two age group 85 1950 1960 1970 _
classifications used regu-
larly by demographers.
The first has simple five Figure 15
year intervals: under 5, 5-
9, 10-14, 15-19, 20-24,
25-29, 30-34, 35-39, 40-44, 45-49, 50-54, 55-59, This Report uses the second age group classification _
60-64, 65-69, 70-74, 75-79, 80-84, and 85+. The that is based on nine age groups that correspond to
five year intervals allows easy comparison among the different stages in the life cycle:
different age groups in the same year because the • under 5 (infant and pre-school), _
intervals are constant. Data on the five year age • 5-17 (school age children),
groups is included in the book of supplementary • 18-24 (post high school and college age),
tables, Technical Supplement to Socio--Economic • 25-34 (young adults in the marriage and prime _
Characteristics of Lexington, Volume 1: Population, child bearing ages),
on file in Cary Library and in the Planning Depart- • 35-49 (adults in the child raising stage who are
ment office. likely to be parents of school aged children, 5 -
17),
4. Age Groups 18 Population
Numerical Total
Under 5 5-17 18-24 25-34 35-49 50-64 65-74 75-84 85+
1950 1,733 3,222 1,323 2,406 3,957 2,843 1,212 536 103
1960 3,177 7,196 1,188 3,287 6,471 3,961 1,497 738 176
1970 2,339 9,902 2,166 3,090 7,281 4,608 1,442 771 287
1980 1,254 6,543 2,735 3,464 6,200 5,883 1,932 1,043 425
1990 1,581 4,630 2,113 3,317 7,147 5,371 2,648 1,449 718
Percentages
1950 10.0% 18.6% 7.6% 13.9% 22.8% 16.4% 7.0% 3.1% 0.6%
1960 11.5% 26.0% 4.3% 11.9% 23.4% 14.3% 5.4% 2.7% 0.6%
1970 7.3% 31.1% 6.8% 9.7% 22.8% 14.5% 4.5% 2.4% 0.9%
1980 4.3% 22.2% 9.3% 11.8% 21.0% 20.0% 6.6% 3.5% 1.4%
1990 5.5% 16.0% 7.3% 11.4% 24.7% 18.5% 9.1% 5.0% 2.5%
Table 4
• 50-64 (empty nesters), While the percentages in each age group are shown
• 65-74 (recent retirees), in the table under the numerical totals a word of
• 75-84 (elderly), and caution is needed. A display of age groups by
• 85+ (elderly requiring assisted living). percentage shows the size of each age group in
- relation to the size of all other age groups. It is
The 85+ age group life cycle stage classification is possible for the number of persons in one age group
more useful than the five year grouping because it to increase while the percentage of the total popula-
corresponds to different types of municipal services tion decreases because of greater change in other age
and the different product and service orientation of groups.
businesses.
Figures 16 through 18 show the distribution of
The reader should note that the life cycle age groups Lexington's population in life cycle age groups from
are not the same size. The 35-49 and 50-64 groups 1950 to 1990 in greater detail than the composite of
- are 15 years, the 5-17 is 13 years, the 25-34, 65-74, all age groups shown in Figure 15.
and 75-84 groups are 10 years, the 18-24 group is
seven years and the under 5 years group is 5 years.
Figure 15 shows the distribution of Lexington's
population in life cycle age groups from 1950 to
- 1990. For those who have difficulty deciphering the
three dimensional graph, the number of people and
the percentage in each age group is printed in table
4, above. The "spike" of school aged children, aged
5-17, building in 1960, peaking in 1970 and tapering
back to 1990, is quite evident in figure 15.
Population 19 4. Age Groups
Younger Age Groups
The peak for the under 5
age group occurred in Life Cycle Age Groups
1960, declined noticeably
and hit a low in 1980. Younger Age Groups
The 1,581 in this age
group in 1990 is a 26 per Lexington 1950-1990
cent increase above the
1980 figure although it is —
still the second lowest
number for that age group
and lower than the 1950 10,000
figure.
8,000
In comparison with other
communities in the study 6,000 1 —
area, Lexington has the ;,
second lowest percentage 4 000 ji '1 •
' '} 3}�, ..k 3. 3 3 kt} 3
(5.46%), and is tied with "}i}n
Belmont, for its total pop- 2,000
ulation in the children un- ;liiii3}: . ; '>:� i:.
r!ji1}'; '}}' i:3�i ' }?JIj.
der 5 age group. Lex- 0
ington's high housing costs t•>
and its low percentage of Und- , 1 1990
rental housing or reason- 'k':; 1980 —
ably priced condominiums 5-1
1970
discourage first home buy-
ers
uy ers and other young fami- 1960
lies. Only Waltham has a 18 1950
lower percentage (5.01%) Under 5 5-17 18-24
but that percentage is 1990 1,581 4,630 2,113 —
probably skewed by 1980 • 1,254 6,543 2,735
Waltham's extraordinarily 1970 2,339 9,902 2,166
high percentage in the 18- 1960 3,177 7,196 1,188 _
24 college age group. 1950 1,733 3,222 1,323
The 4,630 children in the
5-17, school-aged, group Figure 16
in 1990 is the second low-
est number in 40 years,
and only about half of the 9,902 peak in 1970. —
The 2,113 people in the 18-24, college-aged youth,
In the 5-17 school aged group, Lexington's rank group, represent a 23 percent decrease from the 1980
compared to other communities in the study area is peak and is now at nearly the same level, as the —
reversed from the under 5 age group. Lexington has 2,116 in 1970.
the second highest percentage (15.98%) of its total
population in the 5-17 group. Only Lincoln In the percentage of total population in the 18-24, —
(19.49%) is higher. Due to high housing costs, college-aged youth, group, Lexington's rank among
many parents move into Lexington with school aged study area communities is reversed again from
children, rather than having children born here. A second highest in the school aged group to second
greater income, reflecting increased age, is needed to lowest, exceeded only by Lincoln.
move into Lexington.
4. Age Groups 20 Population
r
CAUTION
The analysis of younger age groups in this Report provides a long term, historical perspective on
population change. This Report is not intended to, and should not, be used to project enrollments in
the Lexington public schools. This report does not include a projection of the future size, or rate of
change, of various age groups. The number of school aged children has increased since 1990 - the last
year data is shown in this report.
The Planning Department has consulted regularly with staff of the School Department on population
change for the past 14 years. The Planning Department provides information on the amount of new
housing construction and the projected occupancy, by children aged 0-17, of that new housing
according to the type of structure.
The School Department's enrollment projections are "mid-term"and are updated each year providing
opportunity for advance warning of population changes.
The Planning Department has recently discussed with the School Department ways in which our
collaboration can be improved by use of new data processing procedures recently developed by the
town administration. For the first time, Lexington is close to being able to: 1) monitor the movement
of people in and out of town, which is the most volatile factor in Lexington's school enrollments, and,
2) develop a projection of future births based on locally developed birth rate data.
As discussed earlier in this Report, the US Census other communities in the study area, all of whom
enumerates people where they are located on April 1, have incomes above the State average, good to
1990. Residents of a town who are away at college excellent school systems compared to other Massa-
are enumerated in the city or town where the college chusetts communities, and a high percentage of the
is located and not in their permanent residence. That 18-24 age group who attend college. One explana-
enumeration procedure affects Lexington with its tion of why Lexington has a low percentage is that it
high percentage of college attending students. has a small inventory of apartments of a type, or
However, that enumeration procedure affects all price range, that non-college 18-24 year olds would
occupy.
Population 21 4. Age Groups
Adult Age Groups
Since 1950, the number of persons
in the 25-34 age group, character- Life Cycle Age Groups _
ized by newlyweds, parents in the Adult Age Groups
prime child bearing years, and first
home buyers, has remained rela- Lexington 1950-1990
tively stable-3,287 in 1960 to
3,317 in 1990. However, this age
group has shrunk as a percentage of
the total population as the percent-
ages in other age groups and the 10,000
total population have increased.
8,000
Lexington's 11.45 percent of total 6,000
population in the 25-34 age group is
last in the study area. The next 4000
lowest town,Winchester,with 14.62
percent, is the only other study area 2,000
community with less than 15 percent = —
in this age group. Lexington is
0
" Ill
significantly below the state wide, 25- , / 1990
18.31 percent, average. Although / 1980
Lexington has a disproportionately 35 ,4 / '' 1970
high percentage of single family 1960
homes, they are out of the price 51 ' 1950
range of most first home buyers.
25Nor does Lexington have many 34
35 49 50-64
"entry-level" condominiums or 1990 3,317 7,147 5,371
apartments that are often the step- 1980 3,464 6,200 5,883
p 1970 3,090 7,281 4,608
ping stone for first home buyers. 1960 3,287 6,471 3,961
That type of housing is available in 1950 2,406 3,957 2,843 _
Arlington, Woburn and Waltham
which have high percentages in this
age group. Figure 17
Lexington historically has been very attractive to the The number of people in Lexington in the 50-64 age
35-49 age group, characterized by parents in their group has risen steadily since 1950 peaking in 1980
prime child raising years, with school aged children. at 5,883. Although the count in this age group
Parents have more income and often move up to a represent a decrease somewhat from 1980 to 5,371,
larger, more expensive house. Parents focus on the that is still the second highest total for this age group
quality of schooling. The 7,147 people in this age since 1950. —
group in 1990 is the second highest since 1950.
There were 7,281 in this age group in 1970. The 18.54 percent in the 50-64 age group in
Lexington is nearly half again greater than the 12.94
The 24.67 percent of Lexington's population in this statewide percentage. Lexington has the highest
age group is second in the study area exceeded only percentage in this age group in the study area. The
by Concord's 23.78 percent. All the towns in the next highest is Burlington at 17.98 percent. That _
study area have percentages above the 20.86 percent may reflect an age cohort moving through Burlington
state average; the two cities, Woburn and Waltham, that started a decade or two later than Lexington
are slightly below it. The reader is reminded that in when Burlington had its peak home building years. _
suburbia this age group is predominant.
4. Age Groups 22 Population
Older Age Groups
The three older age groups—above
65 years—are the most rapidly Life Cycle Age Groups
growing in Lexington. Together,
the three groups, i.e. all persons 65 Older Age Groups
and over, increased by 42 percent Lexington 1950-1990
since 1980 and 93 percent since
1970.
The 2,648 people in the 65-74 age
group represent a 37 percent in- 10,000
crease above the 1,932 in 1980 and
an 84 percent increase from the 8000
1,442 in 1970. We have character- 6000
ized the 65-74 age group as "recent
retirees" who are still generally 4,000
independent and mobile. Many can
continue to live in Lexington's am- 2,000
s 141/‘
ple supply of single-family homes ,
although the physical demands of 0
home maintenance and the fiscal 65_ 1990
demands of real estate taxes and
other home maintenance expenses 75 J
become burdensome on the reduced 1970
incomes of recent retirees. 1960
85 1950
Lexington's 9.14 percent of total 65-74 75-84 85+
population in the 65-74 age group 1990 2,648 1,449 718
ranks second in the study 1980 1,932 1,043 425
1970 1,442 771 287
area—exceeded only by Arlington's 1960 1,497 738 176
9.28 percent. Belmont (9%) is 1950 1,212 536 103
close behind in third place.
The 1,449 people in the 75-84 age Figure 18
group represents a 39 percent in-
- crease above the 1,043 in 1980 and an 88 percent The 5 percent of Lexington's population in the 75-84
increase from the 771 in 1970. In general, the older age group places it third among study area communi-
members of the 75-84 group tend to be unable to ties behind first place Belmont (6.81%) and second
remain in independent living arrangements and place Arlington (6.35%).
require various types of assisted living arrangements,
such as congregate living, retirement communities or
nursing homes.
Population 23 4. Age Groups
The age group 85 and
above is the fastest grow-
ing segment of the popul ElderlyPopulation, Lexington
tion nationally. The USS
Census Bureau now pub- 1950 to 1990
lishes data specifically for 5,000 20% —
that age category. It is a
rapidly increasing part of
Lexington's population.
There were 718 in this age
group in 1990, an increase 4,000
of: 15%
• 69 percent from the s•
425 in 1980; b
• 150 percent from the �°
—
287 in 1970; �4 3,000 ' p
• 597 percent from the -� €`""'"`'_€
Lu 10104„, a
103 in 1950. 40
d
�d
o
%' Yi 1.;:;;:111'`1
A large percentage of ...:.:, .;
older 0
in and • 0
those the 85 000
Z
age
group
are no
longer
•'•«
:.v:=:i:•i:;
o0
capable of independent � «a==
living and require various • •. vn
- j
. i
types of assisted living rr -5% --
arrangements or are in
g 1°°° Vii;=';;iii
nursing homes, jii;s:..::::..::: v� i1? sit-ii€i uir,• ?,,his•
s,
;- = :t:ii V',_,_=::=,111 :3 .I
i#YY:f ;'is€ 1 :1 . ii�_.:;�::�'i
The 2.48 percent ofra:::1',,,,i,uili •:::; - sass=;: !:=<;i.:m..
Lexington's population iii" —mum G, s.i1
that is 85 or more places it 0 ,1 mill a '':+<MMOi rg- P"` 0%
first among the 10 com- 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
munities in the study area. Legend
Belmont (2.43%) is next M 65+ M 75+ E 85+ _
highest, followed by —►-- Percent 65+ .••+•.. Percent 75+ ---IF- Percent 85+
Arlington(2.16%)in third
place. _
Figure 19
Lexington, Belmont and
Arlington are in the top
three in each of the age groups that are 65 years or
more. The three towns share first, second or third
place among study area communities. Each has one
first place, one second place and one third place.
4. Age Groups 24 Population
Comparison to Study Area — Also noteworthy is that Lexington bounces from one
A Pattern of Extremes end of the percentage scale to the other in younger
When compared to the other nine communities in the age groups. Lexington has a low percentage in the
study area, Lexington is at the extremes in every age under 5 age group, is highest in the 5-17 age group,
group. Lexington has either the highest or next next to lowest in the 18-24 age group, lowest in the
highest percentage or the lowest or next lowest 25-34 age group, then second highest in the 35-49
percentage in every age group. The one exception is age group. In all the age groups that are 50 and
the 75-84 age group where Lexington is third high- higher Lexington has either the first, second or third
est. highest percentage.
COMPARISON OF 1990 AGE GROUPS
Age % of Lex. % of Mass. Lex. Rank in Other Significant
Group Total Pop. Total Pop. Study Area 10 Study Area Communities
communities
Under 5 5.46 6.86 8th tied with Lower: Waltham 5.01%
Belmont
5-17 15.98 15.63 1st Next higher: Burlington
15.89%
18-24 7.29 11.79 9th Lower: Lincoln 5.82%
25-34 11.45 18.31 10th Next lower, Winchester
14.62%
35-49 24.67 20.86 2nd 1st: Concord 23.78%
50-64 18.54 12.94 1st Next higher: Burlington
17.98%
65-74 9.14 7.64 2nd 1st: Arlington 9.28%
3rd: Belmont 9.00%
75-84 5.00 4.44 3rd 1st: Belmont 6.81%
2nd: Arlington 6.35%
85 or 2.48 1.53 1st 2nd: Belmont 2.43%
more 3rd: Arlington 2.16%
Table 5
Population 25 4. Age Groups
Persons Per Household
Another way to track changes in Persons per Household by Age Group
age groups is look at the number Lexington 1950-1990
of persons per household of each
age group over time. This tech- 1.2000-
nique permits the increase in the
number of housing units, due to
new construction,to be included in 1.0000-
the analysis. It also tracks move- 4 4 W
ment within age groups more accu- Irk i, ,'`k'
rately. In the percentage of total f �� ` `
population approach, the percent- 0.8000- I� �'I t\• •\
age in a particular age group can ) ; 1 ; h/ �' ;
to
go up or down because of in- 1;I ititr : �,
creases or declines in other age : s`I i '/ ... is,%
groups. 0.6000 `t *, / / "w\y
: ' ' // •
For instance, even if the number l' /—\4 ,' / :,
of people in one age group in- Ilk
/ ♦ � ; --
creased somewhat, its percentage 0.4000- / 0 , �,
of the total population could de- I ��
crease because of greater increases 1/ A
in other age groups. The persons _ / ••
per household in each age group 0.2000
permits each age group to be ana- i ,
lyzed independently of other age -1
groups. 0.0000 -- --7• T -- T- LJ
5to17 1 25 to 34 50 to 64 75 to 84
As shown in Table 6, there has Under 5 18 to 24 35 to 49 65 to 74 85 +
been a dramatic decrease in the Legend
number of persons per household ---I--- 1950 --+- 1960 -4-- 1970
in Lexington from 1950. That is --0-- 1980 ❑ 1990
one important explanation for how
the total population can decline Figure 20
while the number of housing units
increased.
types of housing by school aged children. The
The persons per household in each age group, shown Planning Department's projections are based on local
in Figure 20, allows a data on the occupancy characteristics of housing units
greater understanding of in Lexington.
Average Persons which age groups have —
per Household contributed the most to Figure 20 shows, rather dramatically, that in the
the decrease in the num- younger age groups, the persons per household has
1950 4.34 ber of persons per house- reduced noticeably. The vertical bars, representing _
1960 3.97 hold. 1990, are the lowest for nearly all age groups, until
the older age groups when it becomes the highest.
1970 3.64 The Planning Department This reaffirms that the reduction in the number of
has used data similar to persons per household is almost entirely due to fewer
1980 3.04 the persons per household persons in the younger age groups.
1990 2,75 in each age group as a _
basis for projecting the
Table 6 occupancy of various
4. Age Groups 26 Population
5. MEDIAN AGE
Lexington's median age is higher than any
community with 1,000 or more residents on MASSACHUSETTS COMMUNITIES
"mainland Massachusetts", i.e. not on Cape RANKED BY MEDIAN AGE
Cod. It is second among communities with Name, County, Total Median
20,000 or more people and fourth among Location Population Age
communities with 10,000 or more people.
Many of the communities with higher Chatham, Barnstable, 6,579 51.4
median ages are retirement communities Cape Cod
On Cape Cod.
Orleans, Barnstable, 5,838 48.7
Cape Cod
Another indication of the aging of Lexington's Yarmouth, Barnstable, 21,174 45.3
population is median age. The median is the mid- Cape Cod
point of a list of numbers. A median is a general
indicator that does not show the characteristics of the Mount Washington, 135 44.8
population as well as the age group composition, for Berkshire
instance. It merely indicates that one-half of the Dennis, Barnstable, 13,864 44.5
residents is below the median age, and the other half Cape Cod
is above the median. Nevertheless, the median age
does permit some interesting comparisons with other Harwich, Barnstable, 10,275 44.4
communities. Cape Cod
The 1990 median age in Lexington is 41.1 years, Gosnold, Dukes, off 98 44.2
which is higher than that of the State and Middlesex Cape Cod
County (both 33.6), and communities in the study Truro, Barnstable, 1,573 42.8
area and the United States (32.9). As shown on the Cape Cod
accompanying chart, the median age in Lexington is
the 13th (tie) highest in the State, and the fourth Alford, 418 42.6
highest among communities with a population greater Berkshire
than 10,000 and seventh highest among communities Tyringham, 369 41.8
with a population greater than 1,000. Berkshire
In fact, Lexington's median age is higher than any Monroe, Franklin, 115 41.8
community not on Cape Cod and the Islands, or in Berkshires
the Berkshire hills in western Massachusetts.
Amherst, in Hampshire County, with 35,228 people Eastham, Barnstable, 4,462 41.7
has the lowest median age, 21.6, in the state. Cape Cod
Amherst is the location of the largest university in Lexington, 28,974 41:1
the State and has two other colleges. Middlesex
Lexington has consistently been near the top of the Provincetown, 3,561 41.1
communities in the study area in median age—third Barnstable, Cape Cod
highest in 1950, fourth highest in 1960 and 1970 and Table 7
highest in 1980 and 1990. MEDIAN AGE 1950 TO 1990
Lexington's median age from 1950 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
to 1970 had been slightly higher
than the median age in the State and State 32.8 32.1 29.1 31.1 33.6
County. Not until 1980, however,
did it become significantly higher. County 32.2 30.7 28.3 30.9 33.6
Between 1970 and 1990, the median Arlington 34.7 34.8 33.5 34.5 37.0
age in Lexington increased by 10.4
years-twice the increase of the Bedford 35.9 29.2 27.3 31.9 36.9
State and County.
Belmont 37.4 37.9 37.7 36.6 38.0
The changes in the median age in Burlington 27.0 23.9 20.9 28.4 33.4
Lexington have been significant.
The median age has increased 10.4 Concord 31.4 29.6 27.7 33.7 38.4
years in the 20 years since 1970. 36 41:1
This increase means that in only 20 Lexit°n 34-9 32 6 30'7 -
years, the Town changed from a Lincoln n/a n/a 27.1 30.8 32.6
place where one-half of the popula-
tion was less than the age of 30, to Waltham 31.1 30.4 28.4 29.9 31.6 -
a place where in 1990 one-half of
the residents are more than 40. Winchester 34.8 34.1 31.0 34.6 38.4
Woburn 30.1 27.7 26.2 29.6 33.3 -
During the seventies, Lexington's
median age increased from 30.7 to Table 8 n/a means not available
36.9. At a time when the total popu-
lation decreased by nearly 2,500 people, the number The median age in most other communities has
of children under the age of 10 and the number under fluctuated more noticeably. Burlington stands out
the age of 5 dropped almost by half. There were for the profound changes in the make-up of its
3,359 fewer school aged children (a 33% decrease) population. In 1970, Burlington's median age, 20.9,
at the end of the decade than at the beginning. was the lowest in the study area. Today the median
During the same time, those in the age groups 50-64, age is 33.4. Though not nearly as high as
65-74, 75-84 and 85 and Lexington's median age,
over increased between 25 this was a 12.5 year in-
percent to 48 percent. Increase in Median Age crease in median age in
1970 to 1990 only a 20 year period.
Belmont has had a consis- Only 20 years ago 50 per-
tently high median age-in cent of the population in
the 36 - 38 year range. It Burlington Burlington was under the -
had the highest median age Bedford Woburn age of 20, and nearly one
in 1950 (37.4), 1960 ; :_ 0 to 5 years out of three residents were
(37.9), and 1970 (37.7). 4€1__;' 11= E =3 school aged. Today, 50
£;, ___�=€=
Although it has lost first �,� t!u=_ 5 to 10 years percent are under 33, and
-''-°'°_
place to Lexington in the „All only��=1v� one out of six are
last two decades, it is still p1� 10 to 15 years school aged. _
among the oldest in the '`pi '�I
area.
Concord
Iuiooln Winchester
Lexington Waltham Arlington
Belmont
Figure 21
5. Median Age 28 Population
6. SERVICE AND
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
• the Assessors and Revenue Officer for various
Analysis of age groups and their effects on ` programs offering tax relief to older persons
Town services is important because in 1990, with limited incomes;
for the first time, there are more people
who are 65 and over than.there are school • the Board of Health for various immunization,
aged children. nursing and other public health services;
• the Town Clerk for special services in elections
Service Implications for Town Departments for an older population;
One of the objectives of this Report is to provide • LEXPRESS for which older people are a signifi-
data for other Town departments to use in planning cant share of the ridership;
the delivery of services for Lexington residents and • Public Works for accessibility to public buildings
businesses.
and easier pedestrian travel in public places,
Analysis of age groups and their effects on Town such as sidewalks; and parks and benches for
services is important because in 1990, for the first those with more leisure time and the need to
time, there are more people who are 65 and over tarry a moment;
than there are school aged children. Consider the • LEXHAB and the Lexington Housing Authority
various departments that are potentially affected by in providing housing for an older population.
that fact:
• the Police Department because of certain types The preceding is a partial list from which there are
omissions—the Cemetery Division being intentionally
of crimes that are inflicted on an older popula-
tion omitted. Departments could point out other services
or emphases not enumerated above.
• the Fire Department for its Ambulance/Rescue
responsibilities; Many of the departments listed above have continu-
e • Cary Library both for the books in the collection ing or expanded requirements for services for other
and a variety of other services, such as audio age groups as well. For instance, children are a
tapes; significant clientele for programs or services offered
by the Recreation Committee, LEXPRESS, Cary
• the Recreation Committee for the programs it Library, Human Services, Public Works and the
runs for older people; School Department.
• the Council on Aging for an array of programs;
The changing age group composition is important
• the Community Education program, associated information for local businesses,religious institutions
with the School Department, for its classes for and social organizations.
the elderly
Understanding Our Changing Population
• the Human Services Coordinator for a variety of Each town is different from every other town and
programs; from itself 10 years previously.
This Report and the Socio-Economic Characteristics First, a more detailed examination is needed of the
of Lexington series seek to answer several questions: major factors that drive population change—regional
1) How has Lexington changed since the economic activity, the regional housing market and
1980 Census? changes in transportation (and information) technol-
2) How has Lexington changed over a longer ogy and investment. Other reports in this series will
time period? investigate those factors more completely. —
3) How do Lexington's characteristics and
changes compare to other nearby commu- Second, one of the prime factors influencing
nities and to Massachusetts as a whole? Lexington's growth during most of this cen-
tury—development of single-family houses on vacant
Changes in any one population variable, such as age land—will be a less important factor. As the Plan-
groups, are best explained by other variables such as ping Department's 1993 report,Land Use Change in —
housing, employment, transportation and land devel- the Eighties, noted, the amount of vacant land in
opment trends. This Report has highlighted some of Lexington is shrinking. A qualitative analysis is
those other variables. They will be examined more likely to show there is even less dry, developable
fully in the other volumes in this series. Together, land.
the variables provide a better understanding of
Lexington as a whole than any one variable and will Development of primarily single-family houses on
emerge when the series is completed. vacant land is heavily influenced by the State Subdi-
vision Control Law. It provides that if a private
Communities go through stages in their life cycle just property owner submits a subdivision plan for the
as individuals do. We occasionally refer to development of single-family houses in a single-
Lexington as a "mature suburb". Perhaps that is a family zoning district that complies with local regula-
euphemism for aging. tions, the Planning Board shall approve the plan.
Lexington may be at the point where it has to work As the Planning Department's report, Land Use
a little harder to compete with younger, newer Change in the Eighties, noted, Lexington has a
suburbs to maintain its position as a highly desirable choice in its land use policy and zoning practices. —
community. Lexington's housing stock is becoming Lexington needs a large number of housing units
older with less space and fewer amenities than the suitable for small households if it is to provide
new housing built in other newer communities. That housing that matches the changes in its population
is a recurring process in any metropolitan area. The characteristics. For older citizens those housing units
housing built in Lexington in the 60's was newer, may be various types of assisted living accommoda-
larger and had more amenities than that in Newton, dons, such as congregate housing, continuing care
Belmont or Winchester where most of the housing retirement communities and nursing homes.
was built before World War II. Lexington has a
number of advantages, compared to other younger The vernacular terms for "housing units suitable for —
suburban towns, and is quite capable of maintaining small households" are apartments or condominiums.
a high rank, but it can not be complacent. There is no land in Lexington that is now zoned,
with development potential remaining, for that type of
This Report makes frequent comparisons to the study housing. A change of zoning district, requiring a
area to demonstrate that Lexington is not an island. two thirds vote of the Town Meeting will be required
It is part of a larger economic region and a larger for each new development of housing units suitable
housing market that drive most of the population for small households. As rezoning is a discretionary, —
changes Lexington has experienced. political decision, it is difficult to project how many
new developments the Town Meeting will approve
What is in the Future? and what the effects on the town's demographic —
If the reader has been waiting, breathlessly, for a characteristics will be.
projection of Lexington's future population, the
reader will be disappointed because we will not Third, net mobility will be the most important factor —
provide that now. There are several reasons. in changes in total population and particularly in
changes in age groups. New housing construction
6. Service and Policy Implications 30 Population
and births will be a less important factor in future At this time, there is no central reliable source of
population change. Construction of new housing data on the names, and the ages, of every person
units on a diminishing supply of vacant, developable who moved out of town and of every person who
land will be a minor factor when the base number of moved into town. However, with some additional
housing units is over 11,000. As this Report has refinements and cross-tabulations to the Assessor's
demonstrated, mobility is the most powerful factor data base, the Town's data on its population could
driving changes in the school age population. We produce that listing. It could also indicate the
should pay careful attention to turnover of housing characteristics of the houses that people left and
because the existing housing stock is particularly moved into. Correlations might be developed be-
-
suitable to families with children. tween the ages of the people who left and the new-
comers in relation to housing by its size, age, price
Lexington needs to be alert to, and not be surprised range and location. A questionnaire could provide
by, the potential for a rapid turnover in population in insight into why people moved out and why newcom-
some neighborhoods. The usual situation is that as ers moved in.
people progress through the stages of their life cycle,
they move to different types of housing units that Further refinement of the Town's data on its popula-
correspond to the number of people in the household tion might yield a local birth rate indicating the
and their physical capabilities, potential number of births in relation to the number
of women in specific age groups. That would
Lexington has a different pattern than normal in that provide a more accurate method of projecting new
one set of people have stayed in one type of housing births over a longer time period than the current
for a long time. A neighborhood may go through a methods of statistical extrapolation.
period with few young families and children. Then
the empty nesters and recent retirees become aware While the capabilities of the Town's computer
of a few squealing toddlers and tricycles in the rose systems bring it closer to greater demographic
bushes. While the exodus may not occur at the same sophistication,the Town administration has tradition-
rate as a fire drill, the neighborhood can turn over ally not been in the demographic business. At the
quickly. What was a neighborhood with a few least, staff time and perhaps additional money would
children soon becomes one with numbers of children be needed to permit the Town to exploit its potential
reminiscent of the 1950s and 1960s. for demographic analysis. Who would do the work?
At what dollar cost? Or at what cost in other ser-
Improved Capability to Monitor Change vices no longer rendered? Those are budgetary
With the investment that the Town administration has issues. The reader should not assume the Planning
made in computer technology and training, the Town Department or any other department will automati-
is closer to being able to monitor changes in popula- cally assume that responsibility.
tion. We no longer need to wait until the next
decennial US Census to access important population Policy Choices
data. This Report has emphasized the importance of This Report has mentioned a few of the policy
age groups, not total population, in understanding the decisions the Town faces that can affect the popula-
changing demands for Town services. tion composition. Other reports in this series,
particularly housing, will pose other policy choices
Net mobility and changes in age groups are closely open to the town.
linked to the characteristics of the housing supply.
In fact, the literature in the field refers to the emer- Some readers may have difficulty with the idea of
— gence of a new interdisciplinary approach to popula- Town policy choices that affect the population
tion analysis called housing demography. With the composition. That may smack too much of social
recent efforts of the Assessor's Office and the instal- engineering. While the Town may not have policies
— lation of an interdepartmental computer network, all on its population composition, its land development
of the information needed about the housing stock is and housing policies clearly affect population compo-
now available in abundance in electronic form. sition. The type of housing built (or not allowed to
be built) has a great influence on the population
composition.
Population 31 Glossary
How pro-active should the Town be in promoting powerful market forces—in the regional economy
housing that attracts, or retains, certain age groups? and the regional housing market—that limit the
There has been support for promoting housing for effectiveness of public actions.
younger people, particularly those who grew up in
Lexington, graduated from its schools, and cannot One policy issue is whether the Town even wants to
afford to live in the town. Is there support for be pro-active in influencing its population composi- —
increased housing opportunities tailored to the needs tion. Should the Town attempt to intervene? Should
of an older population who have lived in Lexington the Town alter its current set of policies that encour-
for a long time? age certain types of housing and discourage other
types of housing? Should the Town take no ac-
A related issue is how effective the Town can be in tion—leaving its current set of policies in place?
influencing population composition. There are
6. Service and Policy Implications 32 Population
Glossary
This glossary of terms will help the reader understand the terms used in this volume and in the census
data in general.
Census - an official,usually periodic, enumeration are older than the midpoint and 50 percent of the
of population. people are younger.
County - Middlesex County. Mobility - The difference between the number of
people who moved into and out of an area.
Decennial - occurring every ten years.
Net Natural Change - The difference between the
Demography - the study of the characteristics of number of births to the residents of a community
— human populations. and the number of deaths of residents of the
community.A positive net natural change indicates
Fertility - the number of births to women in a that there were more births than deaths;a negative
specified category. One common fertility ratio is net natural change indicates that there were more
between ages 15-44. In 1990, the Census reported deaths than births.
the number of children ever born to women of all
ages. Persons per household - The average number of
persons occupying a single housing unit.
Group Quarters - All persons not living in house-
holds are classified by the Census Bureau as living Population Tree - A graph showing age groups in
in group quarters. Two general categories of stacked horizontal bars. Males are on one side of
persons in group quarters are recognized: 1) a vertical line and females on the other side.
institutionalized persons, including persons under Depending on the numbers of people in the
formally authorized, supervised care or custody in various age groups, the graph can look like a tree
institutions at the time of enumeration, and 2) (or at least some specie in some climate).
other persons in group quarters when there are ten
or more unrelated persons living in units such as State - The Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
rooming houses, group homes, and college off-
campus and religious group quarters, military Study Area - An area defined by the Planning
quarters. Department including Lexington and the six towns
(Arlington,Bedford,Belmont,Burlington,Lincoln
Household - Includes all persons who occupy a and Winchester) and the two cities (Waltham and
housing unit. Families are a subset of households. Woburn) that abut it plus Concord. Although
Families are defined as persons living together and Concord does not abut Lexington, it is included
related by blood, marriage or adoption. because Lexington is often compared with it.
Mean-A statistical term,"the average".Calculated Suburbanization - The process by which popula-
by summing measurements or cases, and then tion, housing units, employment and other activity
dividing by the number of measurements or cases. are distributed into nearby areas thus reducing the
concentration and density of those activities in the
Median Age - A median is the mid-point in a central cities of metropolitan areas.
range of numbers. The median age is the mid-
point in a series of ages: 50 percent of all people
Population 33 Glossary