Harrisburg board hears preliminary plans to restore Broad Street Market brick building

HARRISBURG — Architects for a Broad Street Market reconstruction project gave the Historic Architectural Review Board a preliminary briefing April 7 on plans to stabilize and restore the market’s brick building, and sought feedback ahead of a formal submission in May.

The presentation covered masonry stabilization, replacement and matching of bricks and mortar, paint‑color study, window and door reproductions, roofing materials and mechanical‑system siting. Board members pressed the design team for more research on original roofing material and on whether to permit aluminum‑clad or composite windows instead of traditional wood on primary facades.

The design team, representing Murphy & Denton Hayford Architects, said core work will include stabilizing a slender, double‑wythe masonry wall that was damaged by fire, adding a supporting metal stud backup wall, grouting the wall cavity and rebuilding an unstable corner that has suffered prolonged water damage. “Some of the things we’re proposing is to have an 8‑inch wall, metal stud on the backside of it to help support it and stabilize the actual wall,” Peter (Murphy & Denton Hayford) said. The team said it will attempt to reuse as much original brick as possible and is doing a brick‑matching study because bricks vary across three sections of the building.

Designers described a 23‑sample paint analysis and said they recovered only a few usable paint samples because of charring from the fire. “We took about 23 different paint samples from different locations, both interior and exterior on the building,” Rebecca McCormick (Murphy & Denton Hayford) said, adding the analysis shows the building historically featured several accent colors rather than the plain white finish seen before the fire.

On windows and doors, the team proposed aluminum‑clad wood windows with simulated divided lights to meet modern insulated‑glass requirements while matching historic muntin profiles. The architects said some historic window proportions will be restored using measurements taken from a circa 1907 photograph; they also proposed enlarging some primary doors to match historic heights. Board members said they will require additional documentation and cost comparisons before deciding whether to allow aluminum‑clad or composite windows on the market’s primary facades. One board member asked the team to review the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and to identify any funding restrictions tied to federal or state grants that could mandate specific materials.

For the roof, the designers recommended architectural asphalt shingles because they found no clear evidence of slate or metal on the brick building in available historic photos, but several board members urged further research into period roofing materials and whether a low‑slope standing‑seam metal roof might be appropriate and feasible given warranty and slope constraints. The team said the added continuous insulation required by current energy code will likely increase the roof edge thickness by roughly six inches; they plan to taper the insulation at the overhangs so the fascia proportions remain close to historic appearance.

Mechanical systems remain under study. The team said major equipment likely will be sited off the brick building, with a centralized mechanical approach serving both the brick and adjacent stone buildings; one option under active consideration is locating equipment below grade in the plaza with access flush to the pavement. Board members asked for details about any louvers, rooftop equipment visibility and how ventilation penetrations would be handled in elevations visible from the public right of way.

No formal board approvals were requested for the reconstruction during the April 7 meeting; the presentation was explicitly a preview so the design team could gather early feedback before filing a formal application for the May 5 meeting. The board did approve routine minutes from its March 3 meeting and later adjourned. The design team said it is pursuing a Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission (PHMC) review and may seek state or federal funding, and that findings from those processes could affect materials and documentation requirements.

Next steps: the architects will return to the board on May 5 with full documentation, masonry and mortar test results, window and door details, roofing studies, mechanical‑equipment siting and cost comparisons for window materials.