One of the issue of architecture that is often controversial is the attitudes toward permanence in different cultural contexts. The differences between the western conception of 'eternity' or 'perpetuity' and the Asian definition are considerable, so that methods undertaken to deal with this kind of issue are, vastly, different. In western civilization, from ancient times to the modern society, buildings are essentially considered as physical objects to conquer the erosion of time.1 As John Ruskin stated in his 'The Seven Lamps of Architecture', "when we build, let us think that we build for ever. Let it not be for present delight, not for present use alone; let it be such work as our descendants will thank us for...".2 In other words, architecture, considered in western context, belongs to all time rather than particular era or individuals. In addition, it is also asserted that people who live in present have the responsibility to keep and protect those ancient buildings intentionally and carefully for later generations.3 Therefore, for the purpose of eternity, buildings were constructed with materials of strongest durability and were ensured to achieve maximum resilience during their lifetime.4 However, an undeniable fact is that buildings were indeed destroyed during wars and disasters, or simply cannot overcome the erosion of time, no matter how strongest materials were used or experienced technique adopted. In Europe, countless wars have led to a large amount of monumental landmarks. The West, based on this situation, chose to preserve the ruins as a way to continue its eternity.5 That is why classical Greece and Rome have always been taken as examples of repertory of the past and the Pantheon are still in use with its original materials and form.6 "We have no right whatever to touch them. They are not ours".7 As a result, the most adorable way for the West towards permanence is material preservation, and the aim of preservation