David P.

Billington is a professor of civil and environmental engineering at

Princeton University, where he is the Gordon Y.S. Wu Professor of Engineering.

He has curated numerous museum exhibitions and is the author of 10 books,
including most recently Power, Speed and Form: Engineers and the Making of
the Twentieth Century (with David P. Billington, Jr.); The Art of Structural Design:
A Swiss Legacy; Big Dams of the New Deal Era: A Confluence of Engineering and
Politics (with Donald C. Jackson); and Flix Candela: Engineer, Builder and
Structural Artist (with Maria E. Moreyra Garlock).

Jeff Stein AIA is head of the school of architecture and dean of the Boston
Architectural College.

Civil Service

David P. Billington talks with Jeff Stein AIA

An engineer extols the virtues of efficiency,

economy, and, yes, elegance.
Jeff Stein: A decade ago, Engineering News Record named you one

of the top five educators in civil engineering since 1874.

David Billington: I dont know how they measured that but it
was nice to hear it. I hold the worlds record for having taught
architecture students more years than any other civil engineering
professor. Most civil engineering professors dont like to do that.
Jeff Stein: And in fact you teach one of the most popular courses

at Princeton.
David Billington: It wasnt always that way. I was teaching
architecture students in the early 1960s. After three years, they
came to me and said, Mr. Billington, youre a nice guy and youre a
good teacher. But we hate what youre teaching us. Youre just
teaching us stick diagrams and formulas; we would like you to
teach structures through something beautiful. They showed me
pictures of bridges designed by Robert Maillart. Id never heard of
Maillart. And I had never heard of teaching structures that way.

and I began to teach a structures course to architects through

beautiful works, slipping in the technical part. I finally decided
that the course should be given to the whole university, not just
to the architecture students. So I began in 1974 the course called
Structures in the Urban Environment,and it became popular.
After that, the associate dean came to me in 1984 and said,
We need a freshman engineering course. People are always
trying to design freshman courses for engineers, and they all fail
because they tend to lack an intellectual basis. Princeton had
been offering a course that had just failed miserably it had
reached the list of the five worst courses in the university. It took
me about five years to develop a course we called Engineering
in the Modern World. Between the two of them, we now teach
something like a third of all students who go to Princeton.
Jeff Stein: In your courses, you dont just present the history

of beautiful things and the lives of the great engineers, but

you also talk about what they built and how the notion of
infrastructure and engineering generally, as well as the formulas
that they use.

Jeff Stein: Because you had been trained as an engineer.

David Billington: Yes. I had designed a lot of things that were built,

but I must say, Im not very proud of them aesthetically. They

werent bad, but they really werent great. I had never designed with
the thought of making something elegant.
I decided to look into Maillart and found that not only were
his works beautiful, but they were also the best engineering Id
ever come in contact with. That sent me on a whole new track,
Top left: David P. Billington. Photo courtesy Princeton University, Office
of Communication, Denise Applewhite. Left: Salginatobel Bridge by
Robert Maillart, Schiers, Switzerland. Photo by Rama, Wikimedia
Commons, Cc-by-sa-2.0-fr.

David Billington: If we didnt include the technical engineering

aspects, I wouldnt teach it, even though the liberal-arts students
groan sometimes. One thing that is interesting about Engineering
in the Modern World is that it satisfies either the universitys
lab-science requirement or the history requirement. In my mind,
that is only possible in engineering.
Jeff Stein: You recently wrote a wonderful book with your son, the

historian David Billington, Jr. Power, Speed, and Form in

which you talk about Othmar Ammann, the engineer of the
George Washington Bridge. Ammann used a formula that you
describe: H=qL2/8d. Take that simple relationship, which refers to
weight and size, and you can design a suspension bridge.
Winter 2009 ab

45

<

Sunniberg Bridge by Christian Menn, near Klosters, Switzerland. Photo by Christof Sonderegger, CH-9424 Rheineck.

David Billington: Of course, many of the formulas he eventually

used were quite complicated. But thats the one he used for
conceptual design. And theres a similarly simple formula in every
branch of engineering.

David Billington: Thats correct, the engineers imagination. Its an

interesting subject. Do you know who Jack Kilby was?

Jeff Stein: In fact, you say that the people who have made the great

David Billington: Thats a little test. Almost nobody knows him.

But he was comparable in the late 20th century to Thomas Edison
in the late 19th century. He was the inventor of the microchip and
the handheld calculator and eventually won the Nobel Prize. He
once gave a lecture in which he talked about his early days. He had
just been hired at Texas Instruments, and everybody had gone off
on vacation. And so, as he said, he was alone with his thoughts and
his imagination. For a few weeks he worked on his own, and out
came the microchip. No teamwork, nothing like that. It was entirely
out of his imagination. But he was very well trained, of course. He
knew the field. It wasnt blue-sky. Another great engineer, Robert
Noyce, came to the same idea alone a few months later and the two
men are recognized as co-inventors.

leaps in engineering all used very simple math.

David Billington: Thats right. Ive found in my research that its a
characteristic of all the great innovators, because they had to
think deeply and they couldnt get confused with complex
mathematics. The people who followed them tended to focus on
more refined details, and therefore used more refined
mathematics. But the initial breakthroughs were not done that
way. It was a surprise to me.

Jeff Stein: No, I do not.

Jeff Stein: You have said that a number of engineers are like solo

musicians who perform a complex work on their own without

other instruments or accompaniment or even without a conductor.
David Billington: Teamwork has a value, of course, when youre
doing incremental development of an idea, when youre trying
to be competitive, or when youre refining a concept. And you
certainly need teamwork to build things. But whats really
interesting is what the engineer does best: imagine.
Jeff Stein: You have pointed out that modern engineering falls

The two disciplines of structural

engineering are efficiency and economy;
the key to successful design is to find
beauty within them.
David P. Billington

Jeff Stein: In effect, you found that there are two kinds of

engineering thinking: normal thinking and radical thinking.

David Billington: Yes. In the courses that we mentioned, Im
interested in the radical thinking. Teaching upper-level or graduate
courses in engineering is of course quite different then I focus
on more refined calculations. But first-rate conceptual design
work happens on a much simpler level.
Jeff Stein: In the engineers imagination.
46 ab ArchitectureBoston

into four basic kinds of work: structures, machines, networks,

processes. I am intrigued by the ways in which one engineering
discipline can influence another. For example, you mention that
the processing of iron ore brought about a broad rethinking of the
whole tradition of building, which eventually led to a whole new
aesthetic. Engineers in the 19th century started to talk about the
new thinness of structural members in terms of elegance or
beauty. The lightness of the material allowed structures to stand in
contrast to the rest of the natural world. Did that appreciation of
elegance have an enduring effect?
David Billington: In general terms, the ethos of modern engineering
is efficiency. Efficiency is a loosely-used word, but I try to make it
precise. Efficiency in engineering terms means minimum use of
materials consistent with good performance and assured safety.
Thats the ethos of the engineer, and all engineers work under that
in the modern world. Thats different from the ethic of the
engineer, which is essentially Dont waste money consistent,
of course, with good utility and minimum maintenance. Elegance
is a personal expression of the designer, in structures anyway. But
because something is efficient does not mean it will be elegant.
And elegance does not depend upon efficiency.
Jeff Stein: Thats a really important point, because people who

arent engineers imagine that that would be the case. In fact,

architects tend to imagine that the elegance of engineering comes
from its efficiency.

David Billington: Thats wrong. For instance, the typical steel truss
is probably the most efficient structure you can imagine for a lot of
uses, and its almost always ugly. The two disciplines of structural
engineering are efficiency and economy; the key to successful
design is to find beauty within them. Or as Flix Candela, one of
our heroes, said, to avoid the ugliness without wasting materials
and money.

build anything in a city, with the exception of the Vessy Bridge

in Geneva. Everything else he did is way out in the wilderness,
where they needed somebody who could build on difficult sites
and still do it economically. But some of Menns bridges are in
prominent locations and could be tourist attractions.
Jeff Stein: In fact, two of Menns bridges in Switzerland are

Jeff Stein: You wrote, Some bridge forms have been imagined by

understood to be among the 10 most beautiful in the world. He

says he hopes to create motionless objects of stunning elegance.

architects, but the best are purely the work of engineers. Im sure
that will make some architects unhappy.

David Billington: Thats exactly what he does.

David Billington: The engineer makes forms that control forces,

whereas the architect makes forms that control spaces. The
architect is essentially lost when trying to design a great bridge. So
the architect tries to make up for it, and in the process, loses the
disciplines of efficiency and economy. Santiago Calatrava is a good
example. He has caused the quality of bridges to drop precipitously
in this country, because what he does is immensely expensive. I talk
to DOTs [Departments of Transportation] all the time, and they
all have the same opinion: If we want a beautiful bridge, we have
to go to Calatrava, and it will cost three times what the others cost.
We cant afford that, so were just going to pull out of the drawer
the standard bridge. What theyre saying in effect is that the
engineer has no aesthetic at all or that the aesthetic is the
purview of architects and something they cant afford. And so the
DOTs are defaulting to ugly, standard bridges.

David Billington: They perhaps exaggerated a little bit to get

attention, but at the same time it is perfectly true that our
infrastructure and bridges are a most visible part of the
infrastructure is in bad shape. Every once in a while, one falls
down and kills people, and then everyone gets excited. And then
they forget about it. Its a very difficult issue to keep on the front
page. The problem of maintaining bridges and avoiding those
catastrophes is a live problem.

Jeff Stein: What about Christian Menn?

Jeff Stein: You have said that we live in an engineering culture,

David Billington: Christian Menn is probably the greatest living

bridge designer. Hes a pure engineer.

Jeff Stein: One of the challenges for great works of civil engineering

is that they are expected to last for a very long time, but are exposed
to all kinds of weather and conditions. Design and construction is
one thing; maintenance is another. Here in Massachusetts, there
are 1,100 bridges that have been inspected but not maintained and
are in what the inspectors describe as a state of mild failure.

which has dominated our history at least since the Industrial

Revolution, and that it is therefore very important for the general
public to know about engineering. Would greater engineering
literacy help us solve this issue?

Jeff Stein: We adore his work here in Boston, where we have the

Zakim Bridge [Leonard P. Zakim Bunker Hill Bridge]. Its meant to

signify the new Boston.
David Billington: Youre lucky to have it. Princeton is building a
Menn bridge on the campus now that will be the second one in this
country. Its too bad we dont have 25 bridges of his.
Jeff Stein: Menn is from Switzerland; youve written about him

as well as several other engineers in The Art of Structural Design:

The Swiss Legacy Wilhelm Ritter, Robert Maillart, Othmar
Ammann, Pierre Lardy, Heinz Isler. What in the Swiss culture has
led to so many talented engineers producing so many beautiful
bridges? Is it the countrys dependence on tourism?
David Billington: No, I would argue with that. It all comes from
the Federal Institute of Technology and their first professor of
engineering, Karl Culmann. I dont remember that he ever talked
about tourism. His greatest student, Wilhelm Ritter, became a
professor in Zurich and wanted his students to design beautiful,
elegant, efficient, economical bridges, and thats what he taught.
Maillart and Ammann studied under him.
Unfortunately for potential tourists, Maillarts bridges are very
hard to find, because the higher art world wouldnt allow him to

David Billington: The tendency in America is to be fixated on

whats new, and that leads to a misunderstanding of how things
were built to begin with. People tend to think that brand-new ideas
drive change, but thats not the way things develop. We dont make
radical changes until there is a real crisis. Infrastructure gets lost in
this kind of environment. People might talk about new materials,
for example, but having a new material isnt going to help the
bridges much: you cant tear them all down and rebuild them out
of some kind of plastic.
Jeff Stein: Its part of our culture, as youve noted we learned to

see engineering as a way to solve many of the problems that arose

in this big, uncoordinated, disconnected continent. Your work
puts engineering and infrastructure in a context that we dont often
think about by humanizing engineers, describing their connections
to particular places, and exploring the sources of their ideas.
David Billington: The way we view engineering has changed,
and needs to change more. The average engineer in the late 19th
and first half of the 20th century was a farm boy, the result of
the Morrill Act that created the great engineering schools of the
Midwest. Most of the schools in the East gave up engineering;
fortunately, Princeton didnt. It wasnt considered an elite or
Winter 2009 ab

47

intellectually interesting subject; it was for farm boys. That was

great for a while, but its not great now. Engineering needs to be
shown as a very stern and deep intellectual subject.
Jeff Stein: Thats how its always been perceived in Germany and

Switzerland.
David Billington: Perhaps more so in Switzerland than Germany.
And they have benefitted from it. We can learn a lot about
infrastructure from small countries like Switzerland, the
Netherlands, Norway, because those countries have confronted
and solved some very difficult infrastructure problems.
A good example is the Lower Mississippi, which is the most
crucial problem for us right now. There is a solution, and it
comes from the Netherlands, because they have faced the same
problem a big delta. One of my missions in life is to try to
make that connection, because Ive lived in the Netherlands
and can read Dutch, and so I know in some detail what they
were able to accomplish. You have probably never heard of
Johan van Veen or Cornelius Lely. But they are the heroes of
the 20th century, because these two people literally saved a
whole country. They had help along the way, of course, but
they were the radical innovators that made all the difference.
They both combined engineering and political talent with a
depth of knowledge that puts them in the same category as any
philosopher, historian, or intellectual.
Our vast country is made up of regions that are quite
different from one another, and we need to understand those
differences and find appropriate designs, the best of which
are sometimes found abroad and can stimulate us to better
designs here.
Jeff Stein: Right. The Lower Mississippi has a very different set

of conditions from the West Coast, which in turn has seismic

conditions that we dont have in the Northeast.
David Billington: Now I want to say something about Boston,
which you wont want to hear. I think that the Big Dig was a huge
mistake. First of all, it was supposed to cost $3 billion and is now
about $22 billion. And that is wasted money. The reason its wasted
money is that Boston, as you well know, is a landfill city built on
muck. And you dont easily build tunnels in muck.
Jeff Stein: Well, weve learned that by building tunnels in muck.
David Billington: Its the wrong form. I can understand why they
wanted to tear down the Central Artery. But they should have
built a truly elegant set of overpasses, and they would have had a
dramatically beautiful solution that would have cost $3 billion, not
$22 billion. Seattle is about to make the same mistake, building a
tunnel in landfill so they can have a park on top.
Jeff Stein: They had the same problem an aging overpass

running through the city.

David Billington: The key is to ask the right questions or raise the
right objections in the beginning. Going back to the Lower
48 ab ArchitectureBoston

Mississippi, Katrina is, of course, a real national tragedy, and still

theres nothing being done about it. We criticized the previous
administration for their handling of it, justifiable criticism for
sure. But the real criticism has to go way back to the 1970s, when
officials were preparing a plan after Hurricane Betsy. It was torn
apart by environmentalists who were worried about the shrimp in
Lake Pontchartraine. The environmentalists beat back the Corps
of Engineers, and the Corps of Engineers was too flaccid. It gave
up. So the city did not receive the protection it needed. Its not just
the environmentalists fault the point is that there was no strong
engineering presence such as a Lely or van Veen to argue for the
bigger picture and common sense that might have protected the city.
Jeff Stein: And now, of course, there are arguments about

whether to go ahead with anything much in New Orleans. Given

the warming of the Gulf of Mexico, its certain that Hurricane
Katrina will not be the last devastating storm the next ones will
be even worse. And so how many times can we afford to rebuild
that city?
David Billington: Just once more, I think. If we dont do it right this
time, then well give it up. But I think it would be a terrible mistake
to give up now, a terrible thing to do to that city. And Baton Rouge,
too, as well as the whole lower Mississippi River corridor.
Jeff Stein: You are in an unusual position as both an engineer and

an historian it allows you to look backward and forward at the

same time. The kinds of things were talking about present
enormous challenges. Can you predict how or where we will find
solutions?
David Billington: I do not use history to make predictions. Since
the Industrial Revolution, certain patterns have emerged and been
constant through the late 20th century. That says, I believe,
something very fundamental about our political system and about
people in general which is somewhat different from a prediction.
Jeff Stein: So what do those patterns tell you?
David Billington: What they say, to me anyway, is that real advances
take place through the work of people acting individually, not
committees and teams. When we have a problem in this country,
we create a commission. And the commission creates a report,
which is usually anonymously written. Theres no author. But
there are always large numbers of people involved. And the results
are often not as compelling as they could be.
In an engineering society, such as the society weve lived in
for 200 years, individual people make a huge difference. Once
they make a huge difference, you need teams to implement their
work. But if youre going to have real change, it has to be done
by individual engineers and they need to be recognized along
with presidents and generals. n