LAUSR

and regional architects involved in the planning of Mainz. Hartmut Frank’s contribution analyses the ideas for a ‘Gross Mainz’, which was never realized given that Mainz was situated at the border, first of different Allied zones and later of different federal Länder. In addition, the city subsequently became a battlefield of different interests. Paul Schmitthenner’s plans are discussed at large in Hartmut Frank’s chapter ‘A new old city’. The title is indicative of what the author deems to be the inherent problems in Schmitthenners proposals. Although Schmitthenner proposed a small-scale townscape, he was not particularly sensitive to the historical urban fabric, and proposed the destruction of existing buildings whenever he considered it necessary for traffic solutions. Yet also Schmitthenner’s plan was met with much opposition. Frank concludes that in the end, just as Marcel Lods, also Schmitthenner left no architectural traces in the city. In the following chapters, dedicated to the period after 1949, it becomes clear that ‘experts’ such as Lods or Schmitthenner had little or no saying in the rebuilding of the city. Even the Hochbauamt, the local building authority, had little influence. Although there were many plans, there was no comprehensive master plan, and planning ended up being largely a makeshift adaptation to changing necessities. Even a well-known architect such as Ernst May, who worked out several land use plans, had little influence on Mainz’s physical planning. He nonetheless led the city towards greater market orientation, which benefitted the building boom of the 1960s. This becomes evident in the essay of Volker Ziegler that summarizes the particular situation of Mainz as a city ‘between different fronts’. May’s plan was approved in 1960, thus closing a crucial chapter in the city’s development. Writing micro-histories based on documents from archives and private collections, the authors give a detailed account of the contradictions, ruptures, opportunities and continuities in the planning history of Mainz. The history of the city is meticulously reconstructed. The authors present many better or lessknown actors and their views in word and image, and discuss their contributions at length. Extensive biographies of the planners involved are given at the end. Different chapters investigate the reasons why none of the solutions were applied and why certain political factions opposed certain plans. As such, the book is a small but valid contribution to the history of urban planning. It is not the story of a great success, but rather of a significant failure, which shows that despite planners’ good will the democratic structure of German post-war society led to weak and indecisive compromises. The authors eventually admit that from a disciplinary focus, urban planning in Mainz after 1949 was somewhat obsolete in comparison to what was happening elsewhere. This is the reason why this history has only found a marginal echo in books and professional journals.