I can find lots of infomation about open field battles and sieges but not so much about street fighting or fighting in/around a large building (such as La Haye Sainte and Hougoumont). I imagine there must have been theory about that type of fighting and I assume at least some armies trained for it? Where can I read about those ideas?
Effectively there was none, and for a good reason.
Early Modern and Napoleonic military theory is focused on training men to maximize the potential of inaccurate weaponry through accuracy by volume. As such, soldiers will train to move and shoot in the open ground because that is where they were most effective. Little emphasis is focused on combat in city areas because of a variety of reasons.
First is the purpose of fighting in lines. Many people will ask "why did they just stand there to get shot" but the purpose of standing in lines or columns was to ensure that men stayed together. By staying together, they could be commander easier as commands required vocal orders or musical annoucement. Further, due to the weakness of men spread out to light cavalry, spreading our has a disadvantage in respect to safety.
Second, cities aren't fought in. A major reason that cities were rarely fought in is due to the problem of command. Men can't stay grouped up by company or battalion without being broken up, and thus limiting the ability to receive commands. Worse is the fear of theft and destruction of property as it was something that was actively avoided when not necessary. Civilians weren't something you wanted to worry about in a battle so cities are often avoided as primary centers of conflict. This of course doesn't mean they weren't used, but when they were, it was a mess.
Finally, cities minimize the effectiveness of a musket. Muskets aren't good weapons and the cost of rifles isn't worth the extremely low rate of fire for most troops (rifles were often specialized weapons that were either provided by the soldier or to elite/special regiments. Muskets are long to provide the most stability to a ball being shot without rifling. As cities are filled with buildings with rooms, the space necessary to use a musket might not always be present. Thus muskets are poor for city fighting.
It must be remembered that armies build tactics around the weapons they have. Thus when situations appear that don't conform, things fall apart. I would recommend Swords Around A Throne by John Elting and Tactics and Experience of Battle in the Napoleonic Era by Rory Muir as readings and as sources.
/u/MMSTINGRAY /u/Donaldfdraper
A little late, but it apparently William Muller (Elements of the Science of War, 1811) did suggest a couple of ways to deliver fire while "street fighting", i.e. when a large number of soldiers are pressed into a narrow area such as a street. The two methods he suggests are either to use a revolving fire, where one row moves forward to deliver a volley, then the next row moves forward to deliver a volley, or to perform a type of fire by rank with 8 ranks wherein 2 ranks fire at a time and everyone else reloads while prone.