Journal of Architectural and Planning Research
9:4 (Winter, 1992)	318

landlords sought to fill ever nook and
cranny with living spaces for rental to the
poor and casual workers (Olson, 1980:
51,117).

In both Birmingham and Baltimore the
boundaries between, and rights of access
to, court yard housing was uncertain. But
it mattered little because the tangled
labyrinth of rooms and dwelling spaces
were clustered in the hands of rentiers
holding on long term leaseholds. These
slumlords let the space short term to
tenants who paid a weekly rent; if the
tenants missed a payment they were dis-
possessed of their worldly goods and put
out on the street. Estimates suggest that a
majority of the nineteenth century Birmin-
gham population lived under these condi-
tions while in Baltimore week-to-week
tenants were in a minority (Chalklin, 1974:
157-174; Baltimore Board of Health,
1858).

A majority of Baltimore's families could
afford their own homes. The city plan and
the ground rent system worked together to
provide cheap houses. From the Town's
inception the street plan had been laid out
as a rectangular grid bordered by ample
lots ranging in size from one-quarter to
one acre. An informal system of narrow
alleys had developed straddling the back
lines of the building lots and providing
public access to the rear (Olson, 1980:
117-118).

M

T    R,   U   S   T

ALLEY

FIGURE 2. Typical arrangement of courts in a Baltimore

Alley District. Source: J. Kemp, Housing Cmtditions in

Baltimore.

The ground rent system proved instrumental in lining both the streets and the alleys with small
dwelling houses. For example, consider the following eighteenth century scenario. In 1770 a
freeholder perpetually leased a rectangular lot with twenty feet of frontage on the street for $90
per year to the prime leaseholder who constructed a substantial row house on the front street
and paid the rent. In 1775 the prime leaseholder subleased the back half of the lot to a sub-
leaseholder for ninety-nine years at sub-rent of $45 per year. The sub-leaseholder erected two,
ten feet wide alley houses. The sub-leaseholder lived in one of the houses and sub-sub-leased
the other to a sub-sub-leaseholder for $25 per year for ninety-nine years.

The construction of alley houses provided a second class of houses, less expensive than those
on the front streets. The reduction in size and the pay-as-you go financing associated with the
ground rent system of finance made them affordable to industrious workmen. The alley sup-
plied regular access, and since the long-term subleases were renewable forever, they were the