While the plan form and sequence of movement within the house is a recognisable 19th century one, it lacks all of the subtlety and significance of the plan forms associated with 14 and 13.

The plan is the key to understanding these houses. As our analyses show, these houses are carefully designed so as to filter and gradate access from public through finally to very intimate.

A circulation diagram analysis of these houses shows a ‘Greek Key’ pattern of movement emerging, with the movement from the (public) hall through to the front ground floor (semi public) salon, via central doors into the rear (guest only) dining salon, into the far more intimate (private) supper room aligned directly with the main entrance and finally, (and most privately) into the small ‘cabinet’ carefully positioned behind the service stairs. Significantly, most rooms allow for an alternative route of access and egress.

This complexity is entirely lost in the remnant of the house at no 15, as can be seen from the analysis.

Much of the original garden layouts survive. Gardens on this side of the street are accessible only from the basement service areas.

Archaeological evidence suggests that the ‘Parterre’ layouts to the Henrietta Street gardens, as represented on Rocque’s 1756 Map, are accurate. These layouts, and the convoluted and indirect access from the house, would suggest that the aerial view of the gardens from ground and first floor level was of prime importance, with the actual use of the garden coming a very poor second.

Our overall approach to this project can be defined as seeking to re -interpret and complement the 18th Century town house and surrounding environment, as opposed to a perhaps more architectonic approach which might be suggested by the wording of the competition brief.

The use of no 15 as a pipers Piper’s Centre is desirable, and could become a significant visitor attraction. The provision of performance and recording space and café facilities, toilets and basic services, would provide an ‘anchor’ attraction for tourists and visitors.

This proposal therefore suggests the expansion of the Piper’s Centre into no 16 and on the basis of discussions with na Piobari Uileann, provides additional public facilities to allow for a more global presentation of traditional music. It thereby allows for the re-unification of no’s 15 and 16.

The loss of the 2 bays and entrance door to no 16 Henrietta Street, along with the sub-division of that house and the fragmentary remains at no 15, are damaging to the context of both houses and the street.

It is proposed, therefore, that the façade onto Henrietta Street is reinstated up to and inclusive of roof profile. This work should be carried out in salvaged brick, bonded and pointed to match that existing at no 15. Window and the front door opes would be reinstated, but the new fenestration would be in frameless double glazing, on a horizontally sliding mechanism combining with horizontally sliding timber shutter screens internally.

An artificial ‘scar’ is introduced at the vertical dividing line between old and new buildings in the form of an 8×4 inch vertical slot which also conveniently accommodates a partially concealed and flush rainwater pipe. It is worth noting that both no’s 14 and 13 have a centrally located surface mounted iron rainwater pipe on this line on their facades (it would originally have been of cast lead).

This reduction of the street façade, in this instance, to its most basic elements, would sympathetically and subtly address the ‘newness’ of this façade while referring obliquely to the 18th century pattern book practise of indicating window opes blackened or blank on the page.

The gable / perimeter wall of the 18th century townhouse in Dublin is (in contrast to Edinburgh or Bath) a particular problem in that, with the odd exception, it normally presents a blank and unadorned gable.

In this instance, the gable is enormously prominent and requires re-interpretation both to clarify the character of the building and to terminate the terrace.

We propose that the new gable and perimeter walling is completed in black polished basalt to form a truly ‘blank’ façade onto the laneway with the exception of a single large window at first floor level. The stone, on this level, will fold into the building to reveal the interior space and to demonstrate the thinness and newness of the front façade brickwork at the corner.

It is also proposed that this stonework would be replicated on the internal surface of this walling to provide a clear and familiar datum for the visitor.

Finally, it is proposed that this wall should, on the gable, be etched in low relief to represent positions of the original long lost stairwells, the cabinets, profiles of cornices etc so as to indicate in negative, some of the spatial and decorative qualities of the original house.

The central theme of this proposal is the reinstatement of the graded and filtered progression through the rooms of the combined houses and allowing for multiple paths of access and egress independently of the ‘formal’ sequence of circulation.

The original basic plan form is reinstated but in a somewhat modified and muted form, allowing for progression from the front of the reinstated house through the rear wall and into the rear garden, which now includes an inclined plane to allow for public music performances. The progression returns via the lower ground level into a new double height lower ground and ground level stairwell which inverts the original ground and first floor arrangement of this staircase.

Again, a version of the more complex ‘folding’ circulation pattern is re-established and re-introduced into the plan, section and elevation of the newly reunified town house as shown.

The garden is re-interpreted and reinstated as a heather planted inclined plane, still prominent from above, but, also in this case, useable as a small external performance arena. This outdoor room is now in common with modern practise, and integral part of the house itself.

Interventions within no 15 are to be confined to reinstating original door positions, inclusive of secondary doors to the rear rooms, and the reinstatement of the front ground floor salon, to be entered from a new central door way to be located as per the original pre-subdivision layout. It is, however, proposed that the parking to the rear would be extinguished, and, most critically, that the existing staircase to the rear should be removed to allow a re-forming of the original plan.