"We all came to see that site. We all walked around it. It is already sacred"
About this Quote
Libeskind’s sentence is doing something architects rarely say out loud: surrendering authorship. “We all” shows up twice, a verbal crowd shot that demotes the designer from lone visionary to witness among witnesses. In the wake of catastrophe, the usual architectural promise - control, coherence, mastery - can feel obscene. So he switches registers. The site isn’t a “project” or a “parcel.” It’s a place you “walked around,” like mourners circling a grave, letting the body learn what language can’t hold.
“It is already sacred” is the key move, and it’s a preemptive strike. Sacredness here isn’t bestowed by a memorial or validated by a committee; it’s declared as existing prior to design. That claim boxes in every future decision: you can’t treat the ground as a blank slate, you can’t optimize it like real estate, you can’t smooth its rough edges into a photogenic plaza. By asserting the site’s holiness as a fait accompli, Libeskind frames architecture not as invention but as translation - how do you build without overwriting?
The context is post-9/11, when Ground Zero became a battlefield of competing needs: grief, tourism, security, commerce, national symbolism. Libeskind’s line tries to fuse those audiences into one moral subject, a temporary “we,” so the argument isn’t about taste but about obligation. It’s rhetoric as structural engineering: laying down an ethical foundation before anyone pours concrete.
“It is already sacred” is the key move, and it’s a preemptive strike. Sacredness here isn’t bestowed by a memorial or validated by a committee; it’s declared as existing prior to design. That claim boxes in every future decision: you can’t treat the ground as a blank slate, you can’t optimize it like real estate, you can’t smooth its rough edges into a photogenic plaza. By asserting the site’s holiness as a fait accompli, Libeskind frames architecture not as invention but as translation - how do you build without overwriting?
The context is post-9/11, when Ground Zero became a battlefield of competing needs: grief, tourism, security, commerce, national symbolism. Libeskind’s line tries to fuse those audiences into one moral subject, a temporary “we,” so the argument isn’t about taste but about obligation. It’s rhetoric as structural engineering: laying down an ethical foundation before anyone pours concrete.
Quote Details
| Topic | Legacy & Remembrance |
|---|---|
| Source | Help us find the source |
More Quotes by Daniel
Add to List



