OpenStreetMap (new tab)

Google Map (new tab)

Building History

A controversy about the competition to erect the Shasta County Courthouse was sparked by architect William A. Youmans, who wrote to the editors of the American Architect magazine on 06/28/1888: "Dear Sirs. Since writing in relation to the California Courthouse, I have received the enclosed 'notice to architects' from that point. From information previously received from Redding, it appears that the requirements of the bond is, that the successful competitor is to bind himself that if no bidder is found willing to erect the structure within the estimate accompanying the plans, the architect is to erect it himself at the amount named, in other words, this law, if it exists at all, offers one of the grainiest premiums upon rascality ever devised; for I could readily, as the architect of the building, so design it, and arrange the specifications, that while a contractor could not touch it within 20 per cent of the appropriation, I could take it at that amount, and make 20 per cent. It occurs to me, that such a course would be a criminal violation of the general law, which declares, 'That no party or person shall act as the [unintelligible, possibly the word 'advocate'] of two opposite parties in a contract or business transaction;' and if such a law exist on the statutes of California, it is void by reason of interference with the general laws of the country; what is your opinion? Respectfully yours, Wm. A. Youmans, Architect." The text of the competition entry printed in the American Architect, VOL. XXIV. No. 657 was as follows: "NOTICE. Plans and specifications in detail for a Court-House and Jail, to IHJ erected on block 22, in the City of Redding, County of Shasta, State of California. The jail to be constructed adjoining the court-house and connected therewith. The cost of said courthiouse and jail not to exceed $50,000. The premiums for said drawings, specifications and details accepted to be four per cent of cost of building, said four percent to include superintendence and travelling expenses. Plans and specifications as above will be received up to 1 2 o'clock noon, on the 16th day of July, 1888. The Board reserves the right to reject any and all plans. The architect whose plans are accepted will be required to file a bond of $5,000, as required bv law. By order of the Board. L. T. DRYDEN, Chairman. Attest: A. F. Ross, Clerk." The Editors of the American Architect responded to Youmans's letter: "[We should say that this would be a good competition to let alone. As we understand it, (the plans, details and specifications for the building have to be deposited before the choice is made, and the architect would have little chance of varying them to give himself, in case the burden of erecting the building should be placed upon him. Moreover, as the local contractors would probably combine against him, and he could hardly abandon his own business to go about buying materials and hiring men, it would probably cost him more for the same work than the local contractors would do it for. The provision that the 'successful' architect shall be paid four per cent, instead of the usual five, and shall pay his own travelling expenses has a skinflint air which augurs ill for the happiness of any member of the profession who may enter into a contract with the managers of this particular enterprise. Eds., American Architect.]"

Building Notes

The Shasta County Courthouse had three stories, covered by a compound gable roof. A bell tower stood in the center of the building which was lit by very tall, thin double-hung windows. Immediately adjacent was the two-story jail, which had a flat roof and a parapet. The parapet was trimmed in very pronounced corbels. The original jail for Shasta County was a wood-frame building built near Tehama Street in the 1870s.

Demolition

The Shasta County Courthouse #1 was torn down in 1963.

PCAD id: 16776