Which Town(s) Have the Most Young Families? (Boston, Worcester: cul-de-sac, neighborhoods)

[matrix5k]

South shore where it's more affordable. Weymouth, Braintree, Pembroke, Rockland, Whitman, Plymouth areas.

[Japanfan1986]

Looking at my Facebook friend’s list any of the cheaper areas of Middlesex County has some young families. Places like Tewksbury, Framingham, Dracut. I’m from Medford originally. Any of the people I knew from there who are married either moved far away, bought in a cheaper town, or had HEAVY financial support from parents to stay in Medford.

[mdovell]

Some of this is nation trends. Singe 2008 the population grown has slowed to a crawl. It's been 12 years. Add in the lack of immigration now and it has a huge impact.

Even in the south shore there are declines. Pembroke public school enrollment is 30% less VS 15 years ago.

Having a kid is one of the largest costs in life. Daycare is expensive and is half of marriages end in divorce you aren't going to see huge families.

School districts statewide are going to see significant cuts in the next few months. It isn't going to be pretty. I've heard guidance says layoffs will happen to those with less than 3 years experience

[495neighbor]

Originally Posted by MassTech

Natick is loaded with your families.

+1

Just wait until COVID is finished and head to the Saturday Farmers' Market. The commons is packed with young parents and preschool-aged children, every weekend.

[Shrewsburried]

Considering birth rates in MA are much higher among Latinx and black communities, I'd venture to say cities like New Bedford have the highest abundance of children/young families, but perhaps not per capita when compared to a town like Natick ... and probably not what this seemingly upper-middle class forum is interested in.

My observed and unverified take away is the more working-class Catholic towns are going to have a greater abundance of young families, including size of family. I realize this stokes some rather antiquated views of the Catholic population, but based on my social sphere I can say with confidence the white secular high income crowd (i.e., WASP) is not exactly cranking out kids. Meanwhile my blue collar Portuguese-American and Italian-American friends seemingly have 2-3 kids pretty much across the board.

As stated above, the affordable south shore towns have a ton of young families, as do some of the more affordable north shore towns. Of course, anyone paying for a blue-chip school district is likely to use it, so many of the metro west towns are also very dense with families, though I expect the median age to skews higher. Metrowest is definitely an "establish the career, then have kids" crowd.

[5pyg1a55]

You're very right in your observation.

I've *just* moved back to native Massachusetts after living in Los Angeles for 14 years. In LA, there's young families all over, everywhere from Santa Monica to Pasadena and beyond. The last place I lived, there were kids all over the neighborhood. They'd have lemonade stands on the street corner in the summer (not something most folks would think of when they think of LA, but it's true. This was West LA, Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, Fairfax, Mid City area: the places that got trashed the other day, actually). Same with LA's 'suburbs' and the Valley: kids and young families more or less everywhere. But you probably already know LA is sort of an outlier as far as American cities go: comparing Boston with Chicago would likely yield better results.

IDK what it's like currently all over Mass yet, or even in the familiar parts, but my sister has 3 young kids, and lived in Plymouth for about 30 years, just moved to Taunton with her brood about a year ago. Lots of families there. I spent a few years in Plymouth as a young child, and mostly every neighborhood had a lot of families & kids, contrasted with the North Shore, where I spent most of my years here (Salem, Swampscott, M'Head, Lynn, Beverly, Revere, etc), much less kid activity, many more older folks. I also spent a year in the seacoast New Hampshire region (Hamptons area), and same: kids everywhere, in virtually every neighborhood. But that's a long time ago.

Most of the few friends I have from Mass now, who have kids/ families, have left the state or live in far distant towns away from Boston (including NH). Only one of my friends with a kid lives anywhere near the city -in Chelsea- & she was previously in Cambridge with roommates while single. Her's is a one-year-old baby, too, so time will tell if she'll remain. Most of my cousins, who grew up around Malden/ Everett/ Allston/ Somerville areas, now live around the North Shore towns, along with my brother. One has a new husband & baby, living in a tiny, overpriced apartment, and the rest are stacked up with roommates, living with parents, or in tiny studios (the only cousin with a husband & multiple children moved to North Carolina several yrs ago).

So at this point I'm just kinda echoing what everyone else is saying: the presence of young families seems to be tied to cost of living, and COL seems to be tied to relative distance from the city or the coasts.

[scorpio516]

Originally Posted by Shrewsburried

Considering birth rates in MA are much higher among Latinx and black communities, I'd venture to say cities like New Bedford have the highest abundance of children/young families, but perhaps not per capita when compared to a town like Natick ... and probably not what this seemingly upper-middle class forum is interested in.

I'm still going for Worcester

There are about 36,000 people under 18 in Worcester. If I'm extrapolating right, 48% of households in Worcester have children.

[BostonBornMassMade]

Originally Posted by 5pyg1a55

You're very right in your observation.

I've *just* moved back to native Massachusetts after living in Los Angeles for 14 years. In LA, there's young families all over, everywhere from Santa Monica to Pasadena and beyond. The last place I lived, there were kids all over the neighborhood. They'd have lemonade stands on the street corner in the summer (not something most folks would think of when they think of LA, but it's true. This was West LA, Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, Fairfax, Mid City area: the places that got trashed the other day, actually). Same with LA's 'suburbs' and the Valley: kids and young families more or less everywhere. But you probably already know LA is sort of an outlier as far as American cities go: comparing Boston with Chicago would likely yield better results.

IDK what it's like currently all over Mass yet, or even in the familiar parts, but my sister has 3 young kids, and lived in Plymouth for about 30 years, just moved to Taunton with her brood about a year ago. Lots of families there. I spent a few years in Plymouth as a young child, and mostly every neighborhood had a lot of families & kids, contrasted with the North Shore, where I spent most of my years here (Salem, Swampscott, M'Head, Lynn, Beverly, Revere, etc), much less kid activity, many more older folks. I also spent a year in the seacoast New Hampshire region (Hamptons area), and same: kids everywhere, in virtually every neighborhood. But that's a long time ago.

Most of the few friends I have from Mass now, who have kids/ families, have left the state or live in far distant towns away from Boston (including NH). Only one of my friends with a kid lives anywhere near the city -in Chelsea- & she was previously in Cambridge with roommates while single. Her's is a one-year-old baby, too, so time will tell if she'll remain. Most of my cousins, who grew up around Malden/ Everett/ Allston/ Somerville areas, now live around the North Shore towns, along with my brother. One has a new husband & baby, living in a tiny, overpriced apartment, and the rest are stacked up with roommates, living with parents, or in tiny studios (the only cousin with a husband & multiple children moved to North Carolina several yrs ago).

So at this point I'm just kinda echoing what everyone else is saying: the presence of young families seems to be tied to cost of living, and COL seems to be tied to relative distance from the city or the coasts.

It’s not just COL though. LA is just as expensive as here.

It’s the physical layout of towns/zoning, and the town government Style, and lack of practical amenities, services and other things young families like in many of its suburban and exurban areas. It’s about the kids poor quality of housing, and advanced age of housing for anything less than $600k. It’s about the lack of school choice, it’s about the kid-unfriendly weather.

Theres a lot of factors that reason into why California has a higher share of people under 18 than Massachusetts even though it more expensive. Lifestyle and demographics are also factors. The state of Massachusetts only offer a conventional and comfortable a comfortable middle class life to extremely high income people who are overwhelmingly white. Massachusetts has the lowest white birth rate in the nation-hence the lack of young families.

This forum skews Noticeably older, whiter, and wealthier than the typical Mass resident and so the drawbacks of the state are minimized or even down played-unintentionally of course. But remember this is a state that has been bleeding domestic population for 2 decades if not more. Until Massachusetts gets a governors (and really multiple highly respected officials) who aren’t white upper middle class in origin the child population will continue to decline unless we reach some desperate point.

[BostonBornMassMade]

Originally Posted by scorpio516

I'm still going for Worcester

There are about 36,000 people under 18 in Worcester. If I'm extrapolating right, 48% of households in Worcester have children.

19.4% of Worcester it’s re under 18 compared to 25.2% in Lawrence.m and 25.3% in Brockton.

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fa...etts/PST045219

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fa...etts/PST045219

New Bedford and Lawrence are much younger than Worcester which has fewer children than the national average.

[scorpio516]

Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade

19.4% of Worcester it’s re under 18 compared to 25.2% in Lawrence.m and 25.3% in Brockton.

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fa...etts/PST045219

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fa...etts/PST045219

New Bedford and Lawrence are much younger than Worcester which has fewer children than the national average.

Wellesley is even higher than those at 25.9%, but if the question is numbers it's Boston then Worcester. There are more minors in Worcester than there are people total in Wellesley . If it's percentage - how common families with minors are - it's not Boston (16.2%), Worcester, and definitely not Cambridge (12.4%)