All along, I’ve proposed keeping the Nevada County courthouse on its original site, having written the first commentary about it last May. It’s a “no brainer” when you look at the big picture, not just through the narrow lens of court administrators.
Not enough people were listening back then, but they slowly have jumped on the bandwagon. I’m glad the supervisors are on board now. The Union editorial page also is supporting the plan now that it’s “safe” to do so. (The same thing happened on the “save the library effort.” After Sierra Voices and others did the early legwork, the “which way is the wind blowing” crowd jumped on board).
Trouble is, in the case of the courthouse, now we have to jump through some mighty big hoops to keep it on its existing site, such as securing funds from other agencies. This is no easy task when money is tight.
Could this extra legwork have been avoided? I think so.
In “Bombshell: State admits to “grave error” in Nevada City courthouse report” I wrote last June: “The county was never asked whether it wanted to relinquish space in the existing building, which would facilitate a new courthouse on the existing site.”
It continued: ““Unfortunately, there is a grave mistake in your project feasibility report,” the county letter reads. “The county was never contacted by your staff and asked if we would be open to relinquishing our space in the court house. In fact, this statement is very confusing as this was our desire and repeated request through the previous court house transfer process and negotiations.
“The county is still interested in discussing with the (state) both parties’ equity positions in the Nevada City and Truckee court houses.”
The Administrative Office of the Courts responded with an apology. All along I felt the Administrative Office of the Courts was applying a “cookie cutter” mindset to rebuilding aging courthouses, rather than considering the historic or economic issues.
The “my bad” by the Administrative Office of the Courts is a case study in how our government bureaucracies need to work more closely together from the get-go, a recurring issue.
Filed under: Uncategorized
How much will this monstrosity cost to rebuild to acceptable standards rather than move and building a new facility at the Rood Center where it males financial sense?
I understand that the lunch vendors need their monies, but what about the costs of moving people between the prison and the courthouse?
Just that cost alone has gotta be huge!
Sorry, I hit the post comment button too soon….
I want you to convince me why rebuilding the current space make sense, verses moving it to the Rood Center, or some other location….
It’s really very simple. In a real town, official business takes place in town, not in some weird suburban parking lot (that is, the Rood Center).
One of the chief things that’s great about Nevada City and Grass Valley is that we still take care of a lot of our business along a traditional town-oriented pattern. Let’s keep it that way.
The bottom line is I would like to see a functional courthouse with decent facilities for court personnel, and most importantly for those citizens who are compelled to give up part of their lives to serve as jurors. As it stands right now, I breath a sigh of relief every time I get a jury summons, but manage through dumb luck not to have to go to the courthouse. I’ve only actually had to go once and it was not a pleasant experience. Jurors and perspective jurors deserve the utmost respect and deserve to be handled with dignity and honor. Wherever it is we need a court that is able to do that.
Sure the building is imposing and a great example of period architecture. I want to see it saved. But I want a functional courthouse that serves the citizens of this county even more.
If you think I’m anti-preservation. I’m not. I’m an architecture fan and sometimes armchair critic. I support preserving historic buildings. But sometimes they need to be put to another use in order to save them.
I fancy myself as an architecure bum myself but here is my take. When this courthouse was built in the 30′s, Nevada city was in moderation mode. Most of Nevada City’s buildings were deteriorating and little thought was to put into a courthouse that was historically fitting to the area it was put in. The thought then was out with the old in with the new. Nowdays, thank goodness we have a historical preservation concept. Nothing agaisnt Art Deco but in Nevada City it sticks out like a sore thumb.(infact as my grandmother used to tell it, the design wasn’t too popular with the community back in the 30′s when it was built) I am for tearing down the existing courthouse(the infrastructure is decaying) and rebuilding one that resembles something out of the period such as the Auburn courthouse on the facade. Make it Huge thats ok, put a dome with a flag-pole that lights up at night so you get that same sense when you come into NC at night. The Courthouse is and should be Nevada Citys epicenter.
Just my humble opinion.:)
Wow, thanks for your grandmother’s reflection on the sentiment in the 30s.
I agree, the Art Deco is not congruous with most of Nevada City. I still think it is neat, but then again, I like Art Deco. I also know that having a mixture of different styles reflection different eras is what until recently happened rather organically in any settlement. It is only recently that we are bent on keeping all the buildings in town in the style and spirit of the second half of the 1800s in the West.
That said, I see some merit in your idea. There is something all can agree on whether you support a remodel, a rebuild on site or a new build elsewhere, something needs to be done!
I believe the courthouse was remodeled in the 1930s. Under the Art Moderne (not Deco) exterior is a quarried stone building that was built much earlier. There’s a nice picture of it in the County Auditor-Controller office at the County Admin. Center.
I suspect the 1930s remodel was a WPA project. Art Moderne is a less ornate style than Deco, and it was considered more appropriate for the time (the Great Depression).
I believe that I read that the frame of the structure was built in the 1870′s and remodeled twice before the Art Moderne style was layered over the structure. I can’t remember where I read that, but suspect it was while I was in the court house on jury duty.
Yes, you are correct it was a WPA build and it took place circa 1936-37. And yes Steve I had heard or read the same thing that the current facade was laid over part of the existing building and also added on to. Thanks for the great info!
Architecture Bum that is sorry:)
Everyone thanks for your opinions….
I too have been asked to serve on a civil jury, but when they found out what I did, the defense quickly dismissed me.
My wife however has been summoned 12 times in the last 10 years (Yes, I guess I have a extra 4 leaf clover stuck to my shoe!! LOL!!!)
How much will the proposed repairs costs to this building and what about fixing the parking issues without harming the school site?
Anyone know about these issues?