Philippine Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities

University of the Philippines Visayas

Volume 25, 18- 44 (2020)

Istorya sa Plasa: The Ilonggo Plaza as a

Communication Context
Jude Vincent E. Parcon
Division of Humanities, College of Arts and Sciences, University of the Philippines Visayas, Miagao 5023, Iloilo

ABSTRACT
The study explored the urban public plaza as context in the Ilonggo communicative
experience. In the same way that previous studies considered the city as a communication
context, the plaza, being a significant feature in urban cities, can also be considered as
context. Within the physical boundaries of the plaza, people can interact, socialize, and
form meaningful conversations. Conducted in Molo Plaza and Plaza Libertad, the study
utilizes Vikas Mehta’s (2014) five dimensions of public spaces in describing the plaza
as context. The five dimensions include inclusiveness, pleasurability, safety, comfort, and
presence of meaningful activities. As a result, Ilonggo plazas are inclusive since these
places cater to Ilonggos coming from different walks of life as well as provide spaces for
various activities. Pleasurability, safety, and comfort are characterized by the presence
of subspaces and structures within the plazas as well as the perceived convenience,
attractiveness, interestingness, and accessibility of the two public plazas. Moreover,
various meaningful activities can be done in these plazas. Ilonggos can eat, relax, unwind,
play, or meet with their friends and family as well as interact with one another and engage
in various conversations. These Ilonggo plazas exemplify an environment that is conducive
for social interaction and is a space that contributes to meaningful conversations.

Keywords: Public Spaces, Communication Context, Ilonggo Plaza, Urban Communication,

Interpersonal Communication

This paper discusses the role of the plaza as a
public space in the Ilonggo communicative experience.
The plazas are host to a myriad of conversations. It is
a place where people from all walks of life interact daily
and engage in various conversations – no matter how
mundane or personal. It is therefore equally important
to take notice not only of the conversations but also
of the structure itself – the plaza and its contributions
in these conversations. This paper explores how the
various plazas in Iloilo City – Molo Plaza and Plaza
Libertad contribute to the communication landscape
among Ilonggos.
The Public Space
Space can mean a lot of things. Space in
geometry is “simply that of an empty area,” (Lefebvre,
1974/1991). In communication, space, together with
other factors such as speed of messages, time,
information flow, action chains, interfacing, and
context, form the notion that “culture is communication”
(Hall & Hall, 1990). The relationship of man and
space as a cultural factor is what proxemics is all
about (Hall, 1982). For Edward T. Hall, spaces that
surround a person can either be intimate, social and
consultative, or public (Brown, 2001). Brown further
defines intimate space as the “closest bubble of space
surrounding a person” while social and consultative
space refers to space extended for acquaintances
and sometimes, strangers. She also states that public
space is “the area of space beyond which people will
perceive interactions as impersonal and relatively
anonymous.” This study focuses on public space and
the role that it plays in communication.
Public spaces can be used for a variety of reasons.
Despite the “impersonal and relatively anonymous”
nature of human interactions in public spaces, public
spaces are regarded as essential structures in their
respective communities. Interaction among citizens
in public spaces is still evident, so much so that in
some countries, public spaces are seen as a canvass
 Parcon, J.V.E. / Phil. J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 25: 18-44 (2020) 19

to express political views and even to incite uprisings forms of entertainment are held (Funtecha, 2008).
against the government (Banerjee, 2001). In Riga Henry F. Funtecha also mentioned that the plaza is a
Old Town, a historical city center in Latvia, several convenient space where people can sell their wares,
uses of public spaces are identified including, a place or, on some occasions, a very good space for sports
where people can converge on special occasions, and other recreational activities. He added that its
sports, relaxation as well as recreation activities, and functionality is continuously redefined for the longest
economic activities (Bratuškins & Treija, 2017). In time.
Aylesbury, England, public spaces are ideal locations
Plazas serve as a vehicle for socialization among
for people to meet in a “neutral ground in planned and
members of the community. It is an ideal space for
unplanned ways…where different groups within and
Filipinos to interact and communicate. With all these
between different age groups co-exist and observe
functionalities that the plaza offers, it cannot be denied
each other even if they have little direct interaction”
that it is also a witness to the various conversations
(Holland, Clark, Katz & Peace, 2007).
that transpire among Filipinos.
The Plaza in the Philippines
Molo Plaza and Plaza Libertad
In the Philippines, the plaza is a very good
Iloilo City, as the capital of the province of Iloilo in
example of a public space. Roughly 12 decades
the Western Visayas region, is home to several plazas
after more than 300 years of Spanish colonization
found in the various districts – Jaro, Mandurriao, Molo,
of the Philippines, Filipinos still enjoy the abundance
City Proper, and Lapaz among others. Molo Plaza
of the Spanish culture that transcended time and
in the district of Molo and Plaza Libertad in the City
generations. The plaza is a reminder of how the
Proper of Iloilo are the two most popular plazas where
country has seen waves of colonization – from
Ilonggos usually frequent. Regulation Ordinance No.
the Spaniards, the Americans, and the Japanese
2013-329, also known as the Tourism Code of Iloilo
(Alarcon, 2001). Norma Alarcon also stated that the
City, consider these plazas, together with the other
plaza’s existence in the various communities across
sites and structures mentioned in the ordinance, as
the Philippines is an indelible historical landmark that
destinations or, “sites of greater historic, cultural or
continuously serves a significant role to the Filipinos
economic significance” (Regulation Ordinance No.
then and now. She further mentioned that the plaza,
2013-329, 2013).
although a “mark of a foreign colonizer… has become
a permanent fixture and an organic element in towns With the enactment of the Tourism Code of Iloilo
and cities all over the Philippines,” further saying that City, Molo Plaza and Plaza Libertad are declared as
in fact, “no Filipino community is complete without “historical and cultural landmarks or sites” and that
one.” the upkeep of these two plazas “should always be
the concern of the City Government of Iloilo City”
The plaza in the Philippines is considered as
(Regulation Ordinance No. 2013-329, 2013). These
the center of a complex surrounded by several key
plazas are considered as part of the Cultural Heritage
infrastructures – “an open square known as the plaza
Tourism Zone under Republic Act 10555 signed into
proper, the municipal government building, and the
law on 15 May 2013 by former President Benigno
stone cathedral and adjunct buildings maintained
Aquino Jr. These public spaces, together with Jaro
by the Catholic Church”, (Matejowsky, 2000).
Cathedral, Molo Church, the Iloilo City Central
This particular layout is a way for the Spaniards to
Business District or Calle Real, Fort San Pedro and
introduce the Catholic faith by letting the natives build
the Jaro Plaza Complex have been, according to
their houses in the spaces within the plaza complex
R.A. 10555, “accorded priority development by the
(Funtecha, 2008).
Department of Tourism or DOT” (Pendon, 2013).
The typical plaza has a performance area,
Molo Plaza is situated in the district of Molo. One
recreational facilities, playgrounds, as well as
of the plaza’s key features is the gazebo where six
pathwalks (Matejowsky, 2000). As an important
statues of Greek goddesses Aphrodite (love and
public space in the lives of the Filipinos, the plaza has
beauty), Athena (war), Artemis (wilderness, hunt, and
varied functions – it is where Filipinos can socialize,
fertility), Demeter (agriculture), Hera (marriage), and
celebrate fiestas, or a place for various religious
Hestia (domesticity) can be found (“Molo: Athens of the
organizations to congregate, or where plays and other
Philippines”, 2012). There is a basketball court and a

20 Parcon, J.V.E. / Phil. J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 25: 18-44 (2020)
children’s playground. In 2016, a large shopping mall
in Iloilo City financially assisted the local government
in improving the children’s playground (“SM City
donates children’s playground at Molo plaza, 2016)”.
The enactment of R.A. 10555 paved the way for the
rehabilitation and restoration of these gardens and
other subspaces in Molo Plaza (Pendon, 2014). As
a result of the rehabilitation, Molo Plaza features
several colorful and well-maintained gardens where
a variety of flowers, shrubs, as well as trees can be
found. These trees serve as a convenient shade to
the benches scattered across the area. The pathways
surrounding the plaza’s vicinity serve as a jogging
track for Ilonggos who would like to do their routine
runs any time of the day. Apart from gardens and
subspaces, the Molo Plaza complex is surrounded by
several historical structures such as the Molo Church
and Convent, and the Yusay-Consing Mansion more
commonly known as the Molo Mansion (Iloilo City
Government, 2017). Apart from these structures,
the plaza is close to schools, hotels, bakeshops and
restaurants, and government and private offices
(Salvilla, 2007).
Plaza Libertad is located at the southeastern end
of Calle Real. The plaza is decorated with gardens
and spaces meant for recreation and socialization with
benches placed in various locations. Furthermore,
Photos taken on June 13, 2018 A view of the gazebo, the
center area of Molo Plaza with benches and ornamental
plants surrounding the area.
several notable structures surround the plaza, such
as the San Jose church, the Masonic Temple built in
1928, and the ancestral homes of the Lacson clan
(Funtecha & Padilla, 1999). Furthermore, nearby
offices, government agencies, ancestral houses,
and heritage structures surround the Plaza Libertad
complex (Alcazaren, 2016). Restaurants and schools
can be found in the vicinity of the Plaza Libertad.
Jeepneys ply the area providing convenient transport
for Ilonggos to the other districts in the city. Similar
to Molo Plaza, rehabilitations were made in 2014.
Several projects include the improvement of the
basketball and volleyball courts as well as sitting
areas, light fixtures, and comfort rooms (Pendon,
2013).
Molo Plaza and Plaza Libertad are examples of
places where Ilonggo culture is reflected. In the words
of Paulo Alcazaren (2016), a Filipino architect and a
heritage architecture advocate:
Despite all these improvements, the city retains
its historic charm. This is because Iloilo has kept
many of its heritage buildings intact or adaptively
reused. Related to this is the fact that the major
districts of the city are held together and given
focus by the traditional space of the plaza.
(Alcazaren, 2016, para. 3)
 Parcon, J.V.E. / Phil. J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 25: 18-44 (2020)
Photos taken on June 25, 2018
A view of the center area of Plaza Libertad where
the monument of Dr. Jose Rizal is situated.
Lower right photo is the Iloilo City Hall.
These plazas are considered not only as key
tourist destinations but also as important spaces
where Ilonggos socialize and interact, and in a way,
exhibit the Ilonggo communicative experience. Hence,
it is important, to look into these select Ilonggo plazas
and elaborate its role as a communication context in
the Ilonggo communicative experience.
The Ilonggo Communicative Behavior
To talk about the Ilonggo communicative
experience includes describing some common
noticeable ways on how Ilonggos speak. There
is one particular characteristic that a lot of people
easily ascribe to an Ilonggo and that is the soft-
spoken nature of an Ilonggo speaker – primarily
characterized by the “melodious or sing-song style”
of the Ilonggo language (Funtecha, 2006). Others
would find it difficult to determine if an Ilonggo is
mad or not considering how they “sound like they
are crooning a love song” (Vivas, 2020). Aside from
being soft-spoken, Ilonggos are not confrontational
and maintains a conscious effort not to offend another
person, hence “they often talk with direction” coupled
with endearments (Tejero, 2017).
21
Ilonggos are seen by many as “malambing”
(affectionate), sweet, and exhibit a “sense of over-
familiarity with others” (Vivas, 2020). Perhaps, this
is one reason why they are seen as the friendliest
people. This sense of familiarity, where “everybody
knows one another,” or over-familiarity at times, may
catch a guest by surprise especially when Ilonggos
interact with them as Ilonggos may “ask a lot of
personal questions as if they’d known one another for
long” (Tejero, 2017).
Ilonggos would “go the extra mile just to make
guests comfortable and well-fed” (Vivas, 2020).
Ilonggos are never found to be parsimonious
considering that “he loves to flaunt his affluence…
”(Funtecha, 2006). However, this does not mean that
Ilonggos are not thrifty. Funtecha also mentioned that
Ilonggos are conservative especially in investments
and business ventures. Nonetheless, Ilonggos do not
discuss wealth in public (Tejero, 2017). Tejero also
mentioned that Ilonggos do not want to be rushed
practically in everything – the way they speak, the
way they walk – characterized by an “unhurried and
relaxed” manner, especially in a public place.

22 Parcon, J.V.E. / Phil. J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 25: 18-44 (2020)
These characteristics form a small overview of
who or what an Ilonggo is, how other people see and
perceive them. Some of these characteristics generally
describe how Ilonggos typically communicate. What
could be the Ilonggo communicative behavior in a
public space? In what way can public spaces shape
the Ilonggo communicative behavior and experience?
Which brings this study to ask – what is the role
of the public plaza in the Ilonggo communicative
experience?
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The communication process is comprised of
several elements – sender, receiver, message,
channel, noise, and context. This section highlights
context as a communication element and the
plaza as a communication context. Vikas Mehta’s
five dimensions of public space – inclusiveness,
meaningful activities, pleasurability, safety, and
comfort have been elaborated to provide a deeper
insight on how the plaza can be considered as a
communication context.
Context as a Communication Element
Context can be considered a significant
communication element since it places the entire
communication process in a certain perspective. It
qualifies and significantly contributes to the meaning
of the event. In the production of meaning, apart from
the event itself and the context, culture also plays a
role (Hall & Hall, 1990). It is important to elaborate
on how context affects the communication process.
However, communication researchers sometimes
use context and situation interchangeably to refer to
a physical container where interactions happen, it is
considered as a setting (Pettegrew, 1988). Pettegrew
further clarified that “context always contains
situation,” which means that various situations can
occur in a context. He further stated that context
defines “what communication behavior is possible”,
while situation on the other hand identifies the proper
communication behavior.
Context is considered as the environment that
affects the ”form and content of the message” (DeVito,
2013). In his book, The Interpersonal Communication
Book, DeVito also discussed that in a particular
communication setting, context can either be apparent
(a noisy marketplace) or obscure (the subtle sound of
a water fountain). He further elaborated and defined
the four contextual dimensions – temporal, socio-
psychological, cultural, and physical. The temporal
dimension deals “not only with the time of day and
moment in history but also with where a particular
message fits into the sequence of communication
events.” The socio-psychological dimension is all
about relationships, or norms. The cultural dimension
includes beliefs and customs. On the other hand, the
physical dimension is the “concrete environment”
including the size, the number of people, anything
that is tangible. These four dimensions of context
that DeVito identified are extended to the plaza as a
communication context. The plaza can be considered
as an environment comprised of both physical and
intangible attributes.
Plaza as Communication Context
In discussing the plaza as a communication
context, it is important to briefly discuss first the city
as a communication context. A city can be considered
as a medium, as content, and as context. It produces
and is a product of “practices, interactions, and
narratives” to include “mediated and nonmediated
communication practices” of people (Aiello & Tosoni,
2016). The city can be likened to the concept of media
ecology or is seen as an environment formed by
communication processes and technology (Coleman,
Thumin, & Moss, 2016).
As such, in the same way that the city is
considered as context – an environment where
people create both mediated and nonmediated
communication influenced by the city’s cultural and
structural features, it is from this premise that a plaza
can also be considered as a communication context.
Physical dimension, one of the four contextual
dimensions is regarded as the physical environment
where communication occurs (DeVito, 2013). Public
spaces such as plazas are considered as “sites of
face-to-face interaction” that “offers full sensory
involvement” (Drucker & Gumpert, 1991). Plaza,
as a type of open public space, is regarded as a
“fundamental element of the urban environment,”
contributing to the “structure, organization, and public
life of the city” (Bendjedidi, Bada, & Meziani, 2019).
On the other hand, the temporal dimension is
a contextual dimension that is concerned not only
with time but also with where the message occurs
concerning the series of communication events
(DeVito, 2013). Social interactions that take place
in a public space are “governed by communication
systems” in a way that signals being conveyed to
other users of a given public space are very much
 Parcon, J.V.E. / Phil. J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 25: 18-44 (2020)
dependent on the purpose or reason for using the
space (Pfeiffer, 1980). However, Pfeiffer considers
that usage of space varies from person to person
as in the case of urban public spaces; functionality
ascribed by various individuals differs.
Cultural dimension includes cultures and beliefs
of people communicating with each other (DeVito,
2013). Plazas allow people to showcase one’s “culture
and identities and learn awareness of diversity and
difference” (Worpole & Knox, 2008). It is from these
public spaces such as parks, squares, plazas where
“many perspectives and the common world may be
found” (Crowhurst Lennard, 1995).
The socio-psychological dimension is
characterized by relationships (DeVito, 2013).
Public spaces are seen as “an important social
resource” (Worpole & Knox, 2008). Plazas are seen
as ”building blocks” of a place since it provides
various opportunities for interaction and relaxation
(Memarovic & Langheinrich 2010). Plazas can serve
as space where people get to meet other people –
whether strangers or someone they recognize (Roll,
2016). Social interactions that occur in public spaces
such as plazas are defined by various settings –
interactional, social, and physical (Pfeiffer, 1980).
Pfeiffer also provided definitions on each setting - the
interactional setting defines the roles of individuals
in a given space; the social setting defines the
expectations, while the physical setting defines the
structure, architecture, and design of the space.
“A good space builds a new constituency,” thereby
allowing people to form new ways as they interact in
the plaza (Whyte, 1980). In his book, The Social Life
of Small Urban Spaces, Whyte further mentioned
that “the best-used plazas are sociable places,”
which provides people an opportunity to engage in
various activities be it in groups or alone. Whyte also
mentioned that while a plaza is about interaction and
sociability between and among strangers, “plazas
are not ideal places for striking up acquaintances...”
Civil inattention is apparent where there is awareness
of each other’s presence but without seeing the
need to start a conversation. Ultimately, despite the
probable existence of civil inattention, sociability is
highly regarded. Accordingly, “sociability is defined
as the ability for the public to become attracted to a
space that allows them to conduct social and leisure
activities, whether individually or as a group” further
highlighting the need for public spaces to be flexible
and robust to maintain its connection with the people
23
and to be considered as “…a space for people”
(Zakariya, Harun, & Mansor, 2014). There are three
types of outdoor activities: a) necessary – going to
school, buying items in a shop, or going to work, b)
optional - primarily determined by the favorability of
time, place, or even weather, and c) social - activities
that occur in public places in the presence of other
people (Gehl, 2011).
Mehta’s Five Dimensions of Public Space
These outdoor activities and face-to-face
interactions are characterized by conversations that
occur and are exchanged daily – a manifestation of
sociability. Various dimensions of the place influence
all these interactions eventually producing meaningful
conversations. It is seen that a “good public space
creates a platform for engagement and discussion, for
planned and spontaneous encounters, and learning
of diverse attitudes and beliefs” (Mehta, 2014).
This is further supported by UN-Habitat’s Gender
Issue Guide: Urban Planning Design indicating that
improved public spaces can lead to 1. better visual
quality of the city, 2. improved use of public spaces
evidence by economic, networking, cultural, and
social activities, 3. reduced conflicts and crime, 4.
improved mobility to include efficiency transportation,
and 5. increased social cohesion (Miller, 2012).
What makes a public space good and ideal
for meaningful social activities, social cohesion, to
include meaningful conversations? Vikas Mehta from
the University of Cincinnati created a framework
that evaluates how good public space is. Called the
dimensions of public space, the framework is made
up of five concepts that contain several variables
that serve as indices in evaluating the quality of
public space. The framework identified the following
concepts - inclusiveness, pleasurability, safety,
comfort, and meaningful activities.
Inclusiveness
“Public space is a space of participation. It is an
arena for the collective voice and shared interests…”
and is characterized by people being able to “reach
the space and to enter and use it” (Mehta, 2014).
Vikas Mehta further stated that inclusivity of public
spaces is the accessibility of the place to people of
varying demographics. This particular elaboration of
public space as a space of participation highlights the
people that can be found within the space.

24 Parcon, J.V.E. / Phil. J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 25: 18-44 (2020)
Figure 1.0 Vikas Mehta’s five dimensions /aspects of public space
Inclusiveness of public spaces is characterized
by several variables such as the presence of people
of diverse ages, genders, classes, races, and
physical abilities, control of entrance and presence
of gates or fences, range of activities and behaviors,
opening hours, the existence of rules and regulations
that exclude certain people or behaviors, presence of
surveillance cameras, security personnel, perceived
openness and accessibility, and perceived ability to
conduct and participate in activities and events in
space (Mehta, 2014).
In terms of design, public spaces should never
be designed using a single template or standard.
These spaces should be able to cater to a diverse
group of public space users. When talking about
inclusivity, public spaces should appear welcoming
and accessible to people (Carmona, 2019). Being a
social resource and a place where social interaction
flourishes, it is important to examine the demographics
of the people to best illustrate Mehta’s concept of
inclusivity as well as diversity as a dimension of public
space.
Pleasurability, Safety, and Comfort
Apart from public spaces being able to
accommodate a culturally diverse community,
public spaces should be able to, as what Drucker
and Gumpert (1991) mentioned, “offer full sensory
involvement.” Space can affect communication
as it can elicit emotions in a way that “the physical
environment speaks to us through the visual
metaphors they present” (Ronch, 2012). After all,
communication context is all about the meaning, the
very aim of any communication process.
In addition, people are in a positive mood
when they feel secure and comfortable
in a public space (Weijs-Perrée, Dane,
& van den Berg, 2020). Furthermore,
sociability flourishes in public spaces that
are “more open and comfortable… and
better visibility and connectivity with its
adjacencies” (Zakariya, Harun, & Mansor,
2014). As such, it is important to elaborate
on several public space dimensions such
as pleasurability, safety, and comfort.
Pleasurability, safety, and comfort
enrich the physical environment. Physical
dimension, as one of the dimensions of the
context in communication, not only includes
the physical environment or the size of the
space but also the “temperature, and the
number of people present in the physical
space”(DeVito, 2013). A positive atmosphere in a
public space contributes to “more positive emotional
states” (Weijs-Perrée, Dane, & van den Berg,
2020). As such, these dimensions – pleasurability,
safety, and comfort provide people with the affective
experience whenever they are in these places that
can contribute to a more meaningful interaction or
conversation. With this kind of affective experience,
pleasurability, safety, and comfort towards the plazas
can be observed or perceived individually by every
Ilonggo who goes to the plazas.
Pleasurability is characterized by the presence
and variety of architecture and landscape features,
sense of enclosure, variety of subspaces, density
and variety of elements in space providing sensory
complexity, design elements providing focal points,
visual and physical connection and openness
to adjacent street/s or spaces, and perceived
attractiveness and interestingness of space (Mehta,
2014). The variety of these elements that provide
sensory complexity is supported by how the presence
of plants and foliage in parks and open spaces “all
contribute to the sensation of being one with nature
and convey the feeling of relaxation that one looks for
in the park” (Galingan, 2009).
Safety affects public space use and accessibility
(Costamagna, Lind, & Stjernström, 2019). Safety as
a public space dimension is characterized by physical
condition and maintenance of the space, availability
of lighting fixtures most useful after dark, presence of
security personnel, perceived safety from crime during
daytime and after dark, and safety from traffic (Mehta,
 Parcon, J.V.E. / Phil. J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 25: 18-44 (2020)
2014). A case study in Vienna, Austria included in the
Gender Issue Guide in Urban Planning and Design
by UN-Habitat mentions that dark doorways, parks at
night, and empty lit streets among others can make
women feel unsafe, hence “the optimum use of high
quality lighting in public areas…” is important as it can
address this particular concern of women in public
spaces (Miller, 2012).
A comfortable environment allows people to
express themselves more (Jagannath, 2016).
Comfort as a public space dimension is characterized
by the availability of places to sit, seating provided
by businesses, presence of furniture and artifacts,
protection from weather – shade, and shelter,
perceived physical condition and maintenance
appropriate for the space, and perceived nuisance
noise from traffic (Mehta, 2014). A public space must
be well maintained as this is a factor of making the
area and the people feel safe (Galingan, 2009).
Meaningful Activities
To be able to fully understand how meaningful
conversations can be achieved in a public place, it is
important to understand the behaviors of the people
that interact in these places. Context is all about the
identification of possible communication behaviors,
hence it is important to identify the reasons as to
why these people would go to a public place. The
presence of meaningful activities is a public space
dimension that highlights the usefulness of the
space as it caters to the varied reasons why people
would go to these places. After all, “sociable spaces
are meaningful to people” (Mehta, 2014). Public
spaces are considered as areas that encourage the
formation and strengthening of social interactions.
Communication, together with movement and the
fulfillment of conditions for required and optional, as
well as social activities, is identified as one of the
qualitative assessment determinants in assessing the
functionality of a public space (Micek & Staszewska,
2019).
Meaningful activities as a dimension are
characterized by the presence of community
gathering places, range of activities and behaviors,
space flexibility to suit user needs, availability of
food within or at the edges of the space, variety
of businesses and uses at the edges, perceived
suitability of space layout and design to activities and
behavior, and perceived usefulness of businesses
and other uses (Mehta, 2014). Public places serve
25
as perfect meeting areas especially planned ones.
The availability of meeting spaces “encourages
the getting together” of people. Meeting someone
in public “reinforces a sense of place, a sense of
ownership and identification with the preferred public
place” (Crowhurst Lennard, 1995). People recognize
the importance of spaces as a place where they can
express their problems in life, opinions, and views, or
simply a place where they can be alone (Francis &
Cooper, 1991, as cited in Drucker & Gumpert, 1991).
Analyzing Ilonggo Plazas as a Communication
Context
Ilonggo plazas are seen not only as a typical
urban structure but also as an environment that
serves as a context in the Ilonggo communicative
experience. It is in these plazas where Ilonggos
communicate, socialize, interact with one another,
among other things. What makes these various
activities more meaningful are the various dimensions
that Mehta (2014) identified which all makeup and/
or contribute to the quality of the public space – in
this case, the Ilonggo plazas. In Figure 2.0, the
conceptual representation of the plaza as context, the
Ilonggo communicative experience that happens in
the plaza is made more meaningful with the presence
of the public space dimensions - inclusiveness,
pleasurability, safety, and comfort. It is important to
highlight the interconnectedness of these dimensions
that surround the Ilonggo communicative experience.
In a way, the inclusivity of the plaza can indicate the
perceived safety, comfort, and pleasurability of the
Ilonggos, which can allow for meaningful activities to
thrive.
Considered by Worpole and Knox (2008) as
“an important social resource”, public places such
as plazas are characterized by both tangible and
intangible variables such as structures, subspaces,
and perceptions of Ilonggos in terms of safety,
comfort, or pleasurability whenever they are in the
plaza. In the conceptual diagram, the variables that
make up the various dimensions – inclusiveness,
pleasurability, safety, and comfort all provide value and
allow for meaningful conversations, or for the Ilonggo
communicative experience to be more meaningful.
After all, meaningful activities, as another dimension
identified by Vikas Mehta (2014), are very important
in highlighting the capability of the Ilonggo plazas
to support and allow for the Ilonggo communicative
experience to flourish.

26 Parcon, J.V.E. / Phil. J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 25: 18-44 (2020)

Figure 2.0 The conceptual representation of plaza as context

METHOD
This section discusses the methodology in
conducting the study. The sample size is discussed
including the various sections of the research
instrument used, data collection procedures and the
analysis of data.
Sample
The respondents for this study were the Ilonggos
who go to the plaza at a given time of the day. Before
the actual conduct of the survey, ocular inspections
were conducted at Molo Plaza and Plaza Libertad
between June 4 to 8, 2018. During the ocular
inspection, the researcher took note of the following:
1. traffic of people at various times of the day, and
2. physical features of the plaza. As a result of the
ocular inspection, it was observed that Ilonggos going
to the plaza are diverse. Various age groups can be
seen in the plaza at various times of the day.
Owing to the heterogeneity of the Ilonggos who
go to Molo Plaza and Plaza Libertad, convenience
sampling was observed which allowed for the
identification of respondents as far as their presence
and proximity is concerned. It is important to note
that convenience sampling does not provide full
representation of the Ilonggos particularly those who
go to Molo Plaza and Libertad but were not present
when the data gathering was conducted. However,
to allow for variation in responses different age
groups were considered and identified as research
respondents.
The age groups identified were: teenagers (13
– 19 years old), young adults (20 – 29 years old),
adults (30 – 59 years old), and elderly (60 years old
and above). Moreover, the Ilonggo respondents were
likewise encouraged to express themselves in the
language that they are most comfortable with.
The specific number of Ilonggo respondents with
respect to the age group, sex, and time of day is
detailed in Table 1.0 as shown below.

Table 1.0 Breakdown of respondents as per age, sex, and time of access
TEENAGERS YOUNG ADULTS ADULTS ELDERLY
13-19 y.o 20-29 30-59 60-up TOTAL
PLAZA
MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE
AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
Molo Plaza 2 2 9 8 3 4 4 6 6 3 1 2 3 2 4 1 60
Plaza
3 2 3 9 6 6 4 5 3 1 3 2 2 1 5 0 55
Libertad
TOTAL 5 4 12 17 9 10 8 11 9 4 4 4 5 3 9 1 115
 Parcon, J.V.E. / Phil. J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 25: 18-44 (2020)
Instrument
The questions in the instrument were written in
Hiligaynon – the language of Ilonggos, for ease, and
to provide a better understanding of the intent, reason,
and purpose of the questions. The questionnaire
utilized was comprised of 5 parts with the following
headers: Part 1 – Demographics, Part 2 – Reasons
why Ilonggos Converge in Plazas, Part 3 – Formation
and Sharing of Stories, Part 4 – Stories to Opinions,
and Part 5 – Ilonggos Perception on Plazas.
These parts of the instrument allowed for an
extensive identification of the various public space
dimensions – background of the Ilonggos particularly
their occupation, age, and sex, places within the
plazas that Ilonggos frequent which indicated the
perceived comfort, safety, and pleasurability, reasons
why Ilonggos go to the plaza – indicated the various
activities that they do in these public spaces, and the
various conversations that occurred which further
extends the discussion of Ilonggos engaged in
meaningful activities in the plazas.
Part 1 – Demographics
This part of the questionnaire provided for the
identification of the typical demographic data of the
Ilonggo respondents. The demographic data included
age, sex, civil status, highest educational attainment,
and occupation.
Part 2 – Reasons why Ilonggos Converge in
Plazas
This part of the questionnaire was comprised of
open-ended questions describing the reasons why
Ilonggos would go to the plaza, their company, and
the subspaces that they frequent in the plaza. Some
questions provided respondents the opportunity to list
at least 5 answers in a given question.
The respondents were requested to specify the
number of times they frequent the plaza in a given
week. They were further asked to indicate the typical
time that they would go to the plaza. Furthermore,
respondents were asked of their reasons why they
go to the plaza, if they have a company or not when
they go to the plaza, areas in the plaza where they
frequent, and the various activities that they do
whenever they go to the plaza.
Part 3 – Formation and Sharing of Stories
Part 3 of the questionnaire was comprised of
open-ended questions describing the stories that
27
people share or discuss in the plaza. Respondents
were asked to list down the various topics of their
conversations, the sources of these topics being
discussed during the conversation, the persons whom
they engage in a conversation, and whether these
topics of their conversations are being discussed at
length.
Part 4 – Stories to Opinions
This part of the questionnaire was comprised
of open-ended questions describing Ilonggos’
recall of topics in conversations that occur in the
plaza. Respondents were asked to identify whether
they agree or disagree with the subjects of the
conversations of which they are part.
Part 5 – Ilonggos Perception on Plazas
Part 5 of the questionnaire was comprised of 5
questions answerable by Yes or No. It identifies how
Ilonggos perceive the continuing importance and
significance of plazas in their lives. Respondents
were asked whether the plaza plays an important
role in the community, whether the plaza is a good
place for conversations, and whether the government
should find ways to preserve the plaza.
Data Collection Procedures
Molo Plaza was surveyed from June 13 to
20, 2018 while the survey at Plaza Libertad was
conducted from June 25 to 28, 2018. Two periods
within a day were considered in the conduct of the
study – morning (between 8:00 a.m. – 12:00 noon),
and afternoon (between 12:01 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.).
Practical considerations were taken into account in
the identification of morning and afternoon as the
specific periods of the study. This relates to the traffic
of people in the plaza that was previously observed
during the ocular inspection. The researcher noted
during the ocular inspection that at not all times
there is a significant number of people who would
be available in the plaza. Furthermore, some people
would simply pass by the area without necessarily
staying for a significant amount of time. As such,
the primary consideration that the researchers took
into account during the actual data gathering was to
ensure that the respondents were not merely in transit
in the plaza and they were planning to be at the plaza
at that given time – this was ascertained thru Part 2
of the Research Instrument. The research instrument
utilized was written in English with a Hiligaynon
translation. This is to ensure that respondents are

28 Parcon, J.V.E. / Phil. J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 25: 18-44 (2020)
provided with an opportunity to fully understand the
question/s in the instrument.
Each respondent was approached and his or
her consent to participate in the interview was first
obtained. The background of the research was
introduced thereafter. At the start of the interview,
every respondent was encouraged to answer as
truthfully as they can. They were advised that
their responses would be treated with the utmost
confidentiality and that they can inform the researcher
should they feel uncomfortable in answering any of the
questions. There were no audio or voice recordings
of the interview as responses were all written in the
instrument.
Data Analysis
In analyzing the data gathered from the survey,
the respondents’ answers were analyzed based on
the variables of Vikas Mehta’s (2014) dimensions
of public space. Data was further guided by the
researcher’s personal experiences and observations
from having been to these plazas. The researcher
identified the most common themes from the answers
of the respondents. Some responses were included
which served as further evidence in the discussion.
Since several questions allowed for multiple answers
from respondents, after the most common themes
were identified, frequency counts were then made
to ascertain the number of occurrences of these
themes. In some parts of the data, percentages were
identified.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This section is an elaboration of Vikas Mehta’s
five dimensions of public space directly applied in
Molo Plaza and Plaza Libertad. It is in this section
where inclusiveness, pleasurability, safety, and
comfort, as well as presence of meaningful activities
in the various Ilonggo plazas are discussed.
Inclusiveness of the Ilonggo Public Plaza
The majority of Ilonggos who frequent Molo Plaza
and Plaza Libertad are teenagers and young adults
(See Table 1.1) with 76 respondents or 66.08%, while
18 or 15.65% of plaza users are those who are 60
years old and above. These figures represent the
turnout of respondents from June 13 – 20, 2018 for
Molo Plaza and June 25 – 28, 2018 for Plaza Libertad
from two periods, morning (between 8:00 am – 12:00
noon) and afternoon (between 12:01 pm – 5:00 pm).
In Molo Plaza, these teenagers and young adults
identified various reasons why they would go to the
plaza – personal (relax and unwind, eat, meditate),
educational (rehearse or practice school presentations
or performances together with classmates, discuss
school works and assignments, study), recreational
and sports-related (play sports such as basketball, or
jog), or social (catch up, bond and talk with friends),
(see Table 6.0 for a complete list of activities). These
reasons reflect the availability of amenities or facilities
as well as the adequacy of spaces in Molo Plaza to
cater to these activities.
The rehabilitation of Molo Plaza in 2012 and its
subsequent declaration as one of the Cultural Heritage
Tourism Zones (along with the other structures in
Iloilo City as included in R.A. 10555) allowed for
the allocation of government funds supporting its
continued repair and maintenance (Pendon, 2013).
The rehabilitation proved to be helpful especially in
attracting the interest of the teenagers and the young
adults to access the space as the plaza already
boasts dedicated spaces for sports and interaction
and socialization as well.
In Plaza Libertad, teenagers and young adults
have the same reasons why they would go to the
plaza – personal (rest and relax), educational (study),
recreational and sports-related (practice or teach
dance, play sports), or social (bond with friends or
family members) (see Table 6.0 for a complete list
of activities). The presence of dedicated spaces as
well as amenities and facilities such as benches
or a children’s playground or a basketball court in
Plaza Libertad prove to be an ideal space for these
teenagers and young adults to spend their time.
The presence of Ilonggo teenagers and young
adults in these plazas exemplifies the discussion
of public space as space where these individuals
“become part of a larger community” and is not
constrained by the roles brought about by the home or
school or any other environment (Zakariya, Harun, &
Mansor, 2014). These are individuals who can further
expand their horizons as they engage in varied and
meaningful activities in a public space setting.
On the other hand, the low percentage of elderly
users of the plazas in Iloilo is reflective of several
public space and public life (PSPL) studies. In San
Francisco, U.S.A., 2017 PSPL data shows that only
5.3% of those whose age is 65 and above use the Civic
Center Plaza. Although this figure is slightly higher
compared to those who belong in the 0-14 years old
 Parcon, J.V.E. / Phil. J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 25: 18-44 (2020) 29

Table 1.1 Ilonggo respondents categorized by sex, and age groups

TEENAGERS YOUNG ADULTS ADULTS ELDERLY
PLAZA 13-19 y.o 20-29 y.o. 30-59 y.o. 60 and above
MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE
Molo Plaza 4 17 7 10 9 3 5 5
Plaza
5 12 12 9 4 5 3 5
Libertad
9 29 19 19 13 8 8 10
TOTAL
38 38 21 18

age group, which is at 4.9% the majority of users are
those who belong in the 15-64 years old age group,
which is at 89.8%. However, in 2019, the number of
elderly users of the Civic Center Plaza went down
to 4.7% while users in the 0-14 years old age group
went up to 33.1% and the users in the 15-64 years
old age group went down to 62.2% (Hoffman, 2019).
In the 2018 Public Life Study conducted by Seattle
(Washington, U.S.A.) Department of Transportation,
the elderly (65 years old and above) as well as the
youth (15 years old and below) are underrepresented
users of public space (Seattle Department of
Transportation, 2018). This does not mean however
that Molo Plaza and Plaza Libertad are not inclusive. A
closer look at the profile of these 18 elders from the two
plazas show that 12 of them have jobs - pastry maker,
government employee, masseur, businesswoman/
man, local elective official, construction worker, and
jeepney driver; 2 did not disclose their occupation,
and 4 do not have work. The most common reason
why they would go to the plaza is to relax and unwind.
Compared to the teenagers and young adults where
they go to the plaza any time of the day, the elders
have specific times of the day where they would go
which is between 6:00 – 10:00 in the morning and
3:00 – 6:00 in the afternoon. Furthermore, both Molo
Plaza and Plaza Libertad have subspaces that cater
to this particular age group. These 18 elders from the
two plazas identified the presence of benches across
the plazas as ideal places where they can relax.
They also noted that these benches in particular
and the plaza, in general, are accessible, relaxing,
comfortable, and safe.
Females comprise the most number of
respondents who frequent the plaza (66 of the 115
respondents or 57.39%) as compared to the 49
male respondents or 42.61%. This holds for both
Molo Plaza and Plaza Libertad (see Table 1.2). This
is a contrast to some public space and public life
studies conducted where females are considered
underrepresented users of public spaces (Hoffman,
2019; Seattle Department of Transportation, 2018).
The numbers seen from both Molo Plaza and Plaza
Libertad are a further encouragement to the Iloilo City
administration to continuously cultivate safe spaces
for all genders.
Table 1.2 Respondents as per the time of access
and sex
MORNING AFTERNOON
PLAZA 8:00 AM-12:00NN 12:01PM-5:00PM
MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE
Molo Plaza 14 18 11 17
Plaza
14 15 10 16
Libertad
TOTAL 28 34 21 32
While 15 respondents or 13.04% did not disclose
their occupation, 41 or 35.65% of the respondents are
students. It can be noted (as previously mentioned)
that these two plazas are located near some
elementary, secondary, and tertiary schools. Ilonggo
students find the plaza as a convenient place to go to
especially during breaks or after class hours owing to
its proximity to these educational institutions.
Inclusiveness as a public space dimension is all
about participation and the perceived openness and
accessibility (Mehta 2014). Plazas should be able to
accommodate not only people from various walks of
life but also meet the varying reasons why people
would go to these plazas. In Molo Plaza and Plaza
Libertad, the number and percentage of respondents
whose occupation belongs to Elementary Occupations
based on the 2012 Philippine Standard Occupational
Classification (PSOC) of the Philippine Statistics
Authority are 15 (13.05%) (see Table 2.0). These
respondents go to the plaza for the following reasons:
personal (unwind, destress, relax, strolling, eat, drink
coffee), social (talk, bond with friends), recreational
and sports-related (exercise, jogging). On the other
hand, the number and percentage of respondents
classified under Service and Sales Workers are
11 (9.57%). Their reasons are as follows: personal
(unwind, destress, relax), social (talk, catch up with
friends).

30 Parcon, J.V.E. / Phil. J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 25: 18-44 (2020)

Table 2.0 Distribution of respondents per occupation

Molo Plaza Plaza Libertad TOTAL /
OCCUPATION Percenta
MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE
ge
15 /
Did not disclose 7 8
13.04%
10 /
Unemployed 4 6
8.70%
41 /
Students 4 17 6 14
35.65%
Elementary Occupations* (Utility
Worker, Laundrywoman, Construction 15 /
6 4 4 1
Worker, Plumber, Draftsman, 13.05%
Restaurant crew, Vendor)
Service and Sales Workers*
(Merchandizer, Cashier,
11 /
Beautician/Masseur, 2 4 2 3
9.57%
Embalmer/Mortician,
Caregiver/Caretaker, Security Guard)
Government Workers (Public School
Teacher, Barangay Councilor, 1 2 2 5 / 4.35%
Government office employee)
Technicians and Associate
Professionals* (Supervisor, Church
2 1 2 5 / 4.35%
Choir Member, Pastry Maker, Tattoo
Artist)
Managers* (Businessman – 1211) 3 1 4 / 3.48%
Plant and Machine Operators, and
2 2 4 / 3.48%
Assemblers* (Pedicab/Jeepney Driver)
Craft and Related Trades Workers*
2 2 / 1.74%
(Mechanic)
Retiree 1 1 2 / 1.74%
Professionals* (Band Vocalist) 1 1 / 0.87%
TOTAL 25 35 24 31 115
* Occupations were categorized based on the 2012 Philippine Standard Occupational Classification (PSOC)
of the Philippine Statistics Authority

The rest of the respondents who frequent the
plazas are Government Workers – 5 (4.35%),
Technicians and Associate Professionals – 5 (4.35%),
Managers – 4 (3.48%), Plant and Machine Operators,
and Assemblers – 4 (3.48%), Craft and Related
Trades Workers – 2 (1.74%), Retiree – 2 (1.74%),
and Professionals – 1 (0.87%). These respondents
have indicated similar reasons with the students,
those classified under Elementary Occupations, and
Service and Sales Workers as to why they frequent
Molo Plaza and Plaza Libertad – personal, social,
and recreational and sports-related.
It is also important to extend the discussion in
terms of company and interaction that occurs among
people in the plaza. Social support is important as it
contributes to the individual’s well-being (Ducharme,
2019). In a study of the most-used and least-used
plazas in New York, U.S.A., “the proportion of people
in groups runs about 45%” (Whyte, 1980). Although
20% or 23 respondents would go to Molo Plaza or
Plaza Libertad alone, a total of 73 respondents or
about 63.48% would go to the plaza accompanied
by people whom they were able to establish certain
relationships such as friendships, professional
relationships (classmates or colleagues at work),
romantic relationships (boyfriend or girlfriend), and
family relationships (relatives, children, husband, or
wife) (see Table 3.0).
A closer look at the responses of the 73
respondents provided several reasons why they prefer
the company of such individuals: husband or wife – to
be able to bond with each other; family members – to
be able to relax and play (children), and bond with
each other (relatives); boyfriend or girlfriend – to bond
 Parcon, J.V.E. / Phil. J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 25: 18-44 (2020)
with each other, a good companion; classmates – to
practice; and friends – to bond, and relax as well as
talk about everyday life, or talk and share problems
encountered. Moreover, respondents mentioned
that they prefer to be with their children, friends,
or colleagues because it allows them to bond and
spend leisure time with them saying, “maka dayan-
dayan kag hampang” (stroll and play), or “bonding
kag patawhay kay wala ubra” (bond and relax
because it is their rest day). Others mentioned that
conversing with their friends allow them to talk and
share intimate conversations about problems or life
in general, this as mentioned by some respondents
saying, “makatalk kag sharing sa problema” (talk and
share about problems), “istorya parte sa adlaw adlaw
nga pangabuhi” (talk about everyday life).
While the most common reason for such
company preference was to be able to bond with
each other or relax, the company of friends allows
the respondents to further engage in conversations
and talk about life or problems. A research that
explored the connection between relationships and
health revealed “valuing friendships was related to
better functioning, particularly among older adults,
whereas valuing familial relationships exerted a
static influence on health and well-being across the
lifespan” (Chopik, 2017). Chopik’s study puts forward
that friends contribute to one’s happiness more than
relatives, with activities being shared, and thoughts
can be expressed without judgment (Dillner, 2017).
In a different study, teenagers would prefer talking to
their friends after a stressful event (Knudsen, 2017).
Table 3.0 Usual company of Ilonggos in going to the Plaza
USUAL COMPANY IN GOING TO MOLO PLAZA
THE PLAZA PLAZA LIBERTAD
No response 15 4 Ilonggos who frequent these public spaces.
Alone 2 21
Friends 20 15
Family members - father / mother /
brother / sister / son / daughter / 8 2
children / grand son/daughter
Husband / wife 2 1
Relatives (cousins, uncle, tita) 1 1
Boyfriend/Girlfriend 5 1
Classmates 4 6
Colleagues at work 3 4
TOTAL 60
31
Both Molo Plaza and Plaza Libertad exemplify
what Hall (1982) has mentioned about the role
of space in human interactions. Intimate space is
exemplified in how Ilonggos interact or converse with
their friends or colleagues about life or problems or on
how some Ilonggos spend their time in the plaza alone
and not necessarily sharing that space with anyone.
The plazas are seen as a social or consultative space
where Ilonggos share the various spaces with other
people or acquaintances at any given time.
The demography of Ilonggos who access Molo
Plaza and Plaza Libertad reflects the diversity,
allowing everyone, from all walks of life to interact
and participate in various activities. The existence
of subspaces, amenities, and facilities (gardens,
playgrounds, basketball courts, canteens, benches –
note that these subspaces and amenities are further
discussed in the Pleasurability, Safety, and Comfort
of the Ilonggo Public Plaza section of this study) in
the plaza that caters to such diverse demography
provides everyone the opportunity to engage in
a range of activities (note that these activities are
elaborated further in the Meaningful Activities in the
Ilonggo Public Plaza section of this study) which all
contribute to the inclusivity of these plazas not only to
Ilonggos but also to other people.
Pleasurability, Safety, and Comfort of the Ilonggo
Public Plaza
Pleasurability, safety, and comfort are dimensions
that further enrich the communicative experience of
Ilonggos in the plazas. Structures, subspaces, and
facilities can be found within and around the
Molo Plaza Complex and Plaza Libertad that
all provide pleasure, safety, and comfort to the
Furthermore, respondents’ perceptions and
feelings towards subspaces within the plazas
are important since pleasurability, safety, and
comfort are not only limited to the presence of
physical structures but also to how individuals
perceive the various subspaces.
In discussing the dimensions of
pleasurability, safety, and comfort, respondents
of this study were asked to identify at least
five various locations within Molo Plaza and
55 Plaza Libertad that they frequently go to. The
respondents were also asked why they frequent
these locations.

32 Parcon, J.V.E. / Phil. J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 25: 18-44 (2020)

Table 4.0 identifies the most common locations
where the Ilonggo respondents would normally go
to Molo Plaza and Plaza Libertad as well as the
respondents’ reasons why they prefer such locations.
In Molo Plaza, one of the most popular locations
is the gazebo where the statues of Greek goddesses
can be found. Ilonggo students and young adults
frequent the basketball court – not only that it is
near the plaza’s canteen and is surrounded by
food stalls, but trees and benches surround it. The
children’s playground is an ideal subspace for some
respondents to meet with their friends, or for some
to bring their children to play. Several structures
surround the Molo Plaza Complex such as the Molo
Mansion, and the Molo Church and convent. Several
restaurants, various government, and private offices
are nearby including the Molo Police Station.

Table 4.0 Locations in Molo Plaza and Plaza Libertad being frequented by Ilonggos

REASONS FOR LOCATION REASONS FOR LOCATION

COMMON LOCATIONS PREFERENCES AMONG MOLO PREFERENCES AMONG PLAZA
PLAZA RESPONDENTS LIBERTAD RESPONDENTS

PLEASURABILITY: easy for practice,

PLEASURABILITY: nami ang view (view
spacious, nakasanayan (accustomed to
is nice), damo tawo (presence of
Gazebo/Center Area the area), makita ang view sa palibot (one
people), hindi magamo (not crowded),
(Molo Plaza – gazebo with Greek can see the surrounding views), nami tan-
accessible/visible, lapad space
goddesses awon (pleasant to look at)
(spacious)
Plaza Libertad – where the
monument of Dr. Jose Rizal is COMFORT: comfortable, mahangin
COMFORT: comfortable, relaxing,
located) (breezy), maka pahuway/manami
mabugnaw, maharon kag mahangin
pahuwayan (ideal place to relax), malinong
(area is cool, shaded, and breezy)
(peaceful), mahandong (area is shaded)

PLEASURABILITY: malingaw sa
nagahampang nga mga bata (enjoyable
to look at children playing), mas lapit kay
gabantay apo (place is near/accessible),
kay diri nasanayan (accustomed to the
place), meet up place with friends,
leisure/enjoyment, kay lapit lang
maglakad sa office (place is near to the
Children’s playground and its PLEASURABILITY: makalingaw
office), kung may kadtuan nga lapit
surrounding benches (enjoyable)
(accessible), lapad space (spacious),
pahampang sang kabataan (ideal place
for children to play)

COMFORT: makaliwa-liwa (leisurely

place), makakaon (place to eat),
mahangin (breezy), quiet, tawhay mag
istorya (place to talk), bugnaw (cool)

PLEASURABILITY: makatambay (place PLEASURABILITY: makalingaw

Basketball court and its
surrounding benches
to hangout), accessible, matan-aw (enjoyable), makahampang (place to play),
basket (watch a basketball game) accessible, nami (nice/pleasant)
COMFORT: tawhay (relaxing), nice, COMFORT: mahangin (breezy), tawhay
mahangin (breezy) (relaxing)

PLEASURABILITY: nami ang spot (nice

spot), kag maka istoryahanay (place to
talk/converse), nakasanayan/naandan
(accustomed)
COMFORT: para makaon lunch (place to
Café/canteen area COMFORT: less distraction, wala eat lunch), matawhay (relaxing),
masyado garot (not crowded), mahandong (area is shaded)
transasksyon sa kapehan (place to
transact business), mabugnaw (cool),
near food stalls, tawhay (relaxing),
makakaon (place to eat), mahangin
(breezy)
 Parcon, J.V.E. / Phil. J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 25: 18-44 (2020)
Table 4.0 continued
Benches across the Molo Police
Station
Benches (random, specific
location not indicated) typically
placed under the trees or near
structures (figurines, etc.)
Benches in front of the Molo
church and convent/San Jose
church
Benches across the Molo
Mansion
Benches near the school
Benches across a
restaurant/convenience store
Benches in front of a health
center/clinic/pharmacy
Benches in front of the Iloilo City
Hall and other nearby agencies
33
PLEASURABILITY: may mga tawo
(presence of people)
SAFETY: para safe (feeling of safety)
PLEASURABILITY: accessible, lapit
kag may lingawan/diri ka malipay (near
and enjoyable), kay damo ka makit-an
galabay (other passers by can be seen),
hat-ag ang gakalatabo kag makit-an mo PLEASURABILITY: accessible, easy for
gid (one can see everything that is meet-up,
happening in the immediate
surroundings), makaistoryahanay (place COMFORT: maharon/handong (area is
to talk) shaded), malinong (peaceful), mahangin
(breezy), matawhay (relaxing)
COMFORT: mahandong (area is
shaded), mahangin (breezy), pahuwayan
(place to relax), hindi mainit/bugnaw
(cool)
PLEASURABILITY: because it is facing PLEASURABILITY: maka-pray, may mga
the church, makahulat sang ila baligya (presence of stalls)
ginabaantayan (ideal meeting place)
COMFORT: mahandong (area is shaded),
COMFORT: comfort zone, mahangin tawhay (relaxing), malinong (place is
(breezy), mabugnaw (cool) quiet), hindi mainit (cool)
PLEASURABILITY: accessible
COMFORT: mabugnaw (cool), relaxing,
not too crowded, comfortable, tawhay
(relaxing), mahangin (breezy)
PLEASURABILITY: mas lapit
(near/accessible)
COMFORT: mabugnaw (cool)
PLEASURABILITY: near and accessible
to other surrounding places
PLEASURABILITY: lapit sa sakayan
(accessible to transportation), makita ang
mga jeep (jeepeneys can be
seen/available), spacious, suited for
PLEASURABILITY: Accessible to my
practice, makalilingaw (enjoyable)
house
COMFORT: mahandong (shaded area),
mahangin (breezy), matawhay (relaxing),
mabugnaw (cool)
PLEASURABILITY: madali kadtuan
(accessible), makita view sang City hall
(Iloilo City hall can be seen)
COMFORT: not crowded, bugnaw (cool),
matawhay (relaxing)

34 Parcon, J.V.E. / Phil. J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 25: 18-44 (2020)
In Plaza Libertad, the center area where the
Jose Rizal monument is located is a popular location.
Respondents find the area spacious, nice to look at
and provide an unobstructed view of the surrounding
areas. Apart from the benches that can be found
within the plaza, there is a children’s playground, a
basketball court, and a canteen where people can
buy and eat food. Government and private offices
surround the plaza – Iloilo City Hall, a pharmacy,
medical clinic, and the San Jose Church.
Pleasurability is not only the presence and variety
of structures in the space but also includes several
characteristics such as the perceived attractiveness
and interestingness of the space (Mehta, 2014).
Respondents were asked as to why they frequent
these areas or locations. In Molo Plaza, respondents
mentioned that they like the plaza because of the breeze
from the presence of trees within the vicinity. Several
respondents mentioned that they like the benches in
the various areas of the plaza, “nami kay mahangin”
(it is nice because of the breeze) or “nami ang hangin”
(the place has a nice breeze). Respondents like the
large space of the playground and the gazebo area
with some of them mentioned, “lapad ang space/mas
lapad space” (it is spacious), “nami ang spot” (spot
is good). Furthermore, respondents mentioned that
they go to the plaza because it is near, accessible,
and everything is visible. In the respondents’ words
– “lapit “(near), “hat-ag ang gakalatabo kag makit-an
mo gid” (one can see everything that is happening in
the immediate surroundings), “kay lapit lang maglakat
sa office” (office is nearby).
Ilonggos who go to Plaza Libertad share the
same responses with those who go to Molo Plaza.
In terms of pleasurability, respondents find the plaza
spacious, “mahangin” (breezy), “nami” (good), “nami
lagawan” (good for strolling). They find a sense of
enjoyment whenever they are in the playground with
one respondent saying “makalilingaw” (enjoyable).
Apart from these, respondents mentioned that they
like the views in Plaza Libertad especially when they
are in the center area where the Rizal monument
is located – “makita ang view sa palibot” (see the
surrounding views), “nami tan-awon” (good view),
and “makita view sang city hall” (to see the city hall
view).
On the other hand, apart from the usual variables of
comfort as a public space which include the existence
of places to sit, furniture and artifacts, and design that
encourages the use of space, it is also important to
explore the climatic comfort a person experiences,
the perceived condition and maintenance of the
space, as well as the perceived nuisance noise from
traffic (Mehta, 2014). In Molo Plaza respondents
further added that they frequent the various locations
in the plaza because it is cool or “bugnaw/tugnaw/
mabugnaw, hindi mainit” (not hot). Trees found in
the plaza lend shade to the several benches placed
underneath as respondents mentioned “maharon/
handong/mahandong” (shade/shady). In addition,
Ilonggos mentioned the relaxing atmosphere of the
Molo Plaza with them saying “matawhay/tawhay”
(relaxing). Furthermore, noise (or the absence of it) is
also a variable in exploring comfort as a public space
aspect. Respondents highlighted that Molo Plaza has
fewer distractions, quiet, not chaotic, not crowded,
and orderly saying that, “wala masyado garot”
(orderly), “hindi magamo” (not chaotic), and “linong”
(quiet). In Plaza Libertad, respondents pointed out
the relaxing environment that they get to experience
saying that the plaza is comfortable, “tawhay/
matawhay” (relaxing), “makapahuway” (can take a
rest/can relax), “hindi mainit” (not hot), “mahandong/
maharon” (shady), and “mabugnaw” (cool).
Ilonggos find Plaza Libertad accessible and
convenient in terms of transportation saying that,
“lapit sa sakayan” (accessible to transportation),
“makita ang mga jeep” (jeepneys can be seen/
are available), and “madali kadtuan” (accessible
location). The respondents mentioned that Plaza
Libertad is not crowded and “malinong” (quiet). Plaza
Libertad’s centerpiece is the monument of Dr. Jose
Rizal is located. Benches and trees surround it. There
is a nearby canteen and several restaurants across
the plaza. Furthermore, several respondents of the
study mentioned that they frequent Plaza Libertad
as they find the place not crowded, “madali kadtuan”
(accessible), “mahandong, maharon” (shady),
“makita ang view sa palibot” (surrounding views can
be seen), and “matawhay” (relaxing).
Safety as a public space aspect, just like with
pleasurability and comfort, deals with two aspects –
presence of structures, facilities that promote safety
and security in the space such as proper lighting,
physical condition and maintenance of spaces, and
the perceived safety of the people from crime any
time of the day, as well as the connection of the public
space to streets and other spaces (Mehta, 2014). The
Tourism Code of Iloilo City as enacted by Regulation
Ordinance No. 2013-329 provides for the creation of
the Iloilo City Cultural Heritage Conservation Council
 Parcon, J.V.E. / Phil. J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 25: 18-44 (2020)
or ICCHCC in charge of the upkeep and preservation
of Plaza Libertad and Molo Plaza and other heritage
or legacy buildings (Regulation Ordinance No. 2013-
329, 2013).
The use of Molo Plaza and Plaza Libertad is
regulated by certain ordinances. Some key provisions
include non-imposition of fees and permits to any non-
organized events (while permits should be secured
from the City Environment and Natural Resources
Office for organized events like exhibits, shows,
drills), use of plazas (from four in the morning until
midnight, except for minors which is from four in the
morning until ten in the evening), and prohibition of
cooking, washing, gambling, and drinking of alcoholic
beverages (Tayona, 2019a). It is stated in the Tourism
Code of Iloilo City that during historical, cultural, or
fiesta celebration, permanent or temporary structures
should not be built “in the grassy or planted portions
or enclosures,” instead, “the basketball court or mini
gym may be temporarily enclosed and used for
purposes of such activities which in no event shall
exceed one (1) week” (Regulation Ordinance No.
2013-329, 2013). Furthermore, the City Government
of Iloilo in 2020 stated that “district plazas would be
off-limits, to all kinds of trade fairs and fiesta activities,”
and that “district plazas would be purely for rest and
recreation” (Tayona, 2019b).
Based on the responses of Ilonggos who frequent
Molo Plaza and Plaza Libertad, pleasurability is
characterized by the presence and variety of several
subspaces such as the gazebo/center area, children’s
playground, recreational and sports facilities such
as the basketball court, eating area/café/canteen,
food stalls within the plaza, and the several benches
placed across the two plazas. Further, the perceived
attractiveness and interestingness of the two plazas is
characterized by the varied positive responses such
as not being crowded, accessible, spacious, spaces
serve as ideal meeting places, enjoyable, nice place/
spot, and accessible to transportation.
Safety is characterized not only by the various
ordinances being implemented for the use of the
plazas as well as curfews being imposed but also a
respondent mentioned how the nearby police station
provided the feeling of being safe.
Comfort is characterized by various responses
that include areas in Molo Plaza and Plaza Libertad
being cool, breezy, and has shade – primarily provided
by the presence of trees. The Ilonggos find the two
35
plazas a leisurely and relaxing place, less distraction,
and an ideal place to talk or engage in a conversation.
These dimensions all contribute to the full sensory
experience of Ilonggos whenever they are in the
plazas in a way that the presence of amenities and
subspaces making the plaza more sociable and in
turn contribute to the positive perceptions of Ilonggos
to these plazas. In a way, the enactment of R.A.
10555 made it possible for the Iloilo City government
to explore ways to improve the various subspaces
in both Molo Plaza and Plaza Libertad considering
that these plazas are given priority when it comes to
rehabilitation and development by the Department
of Tourism. At the same time, the Tourism Code of
Iloilo City is a significant instrument that continuously
reminds the local government officials of Iloilo City to
explore ways to protect and conserve these plazas
together with the other places, sites, and landmarks in
Iloilo City. Consequently, the development, continuous
maintenance and upkeep, availability and variety of
subspaces, and the presence of other conveniences
including the accessibility of these plazas allow for
various interactions and meaningful conversations to
thrive.
Meaningful Activities in the Ilonggo Public Plaza
Meaningful activities not only include the
availability of spaces that can accommodate the
various activities of people but also the range of
activities and behaviors. The respondents were
asked to identify at least five of the various activities
that they do in Molo Plaza and Plaza Libertad. Table
5.0 lists the various activities that occur in Molo
Plaza and Plaza Libertad. These activities were
further categorized into personal – activities that are
interpersonal, educational – school-related activities,
recreational and sports-related – activities that involve
playing or fitness, and social – activities that involve
interaction with friends, family members, and other
people.
Molo Plaza and Plaza Libertad are ideal public
spaces to meet with colleagues, “gahulat sa upod sa
work” (wait for officemates), “gahulat sang bata” (wait
for my child), “ginahulat nga classmate” (wait for my
classmate), “may ginahulat nga upod” (waiting for a
colleague)”. Respondents mentioned that they would
like to go to the plaza to unwind, or to take a rest,
“gapahangin-hangin, palingaw-lingaw / pahuway-
huway, lagaw-lagaw, gatambay, liwa-liwa.” Perhaps,
this is a reflection of the Ilonggos’ penchant for a
more relaxed demeanor in anything especially when

36 Parcon, J.V.E. / Phil. J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 25: 18-44 (2020)
they are in a public space. The Ilonggo plazas are
ideal venues for sports and recreation. Ilonggos
would go to the plaza to play, exercise, and jog or
“lantaw basket” (watch a basketball game). Ilonggos
utilize these public spaces as a transit point whenever
they have errands or other business transactions
in nearby offices. The plazas are likewise used by
the Ilonggos as a place where they can study and
discuss school assignments and projects as well as
talk casually with friends and colleagues. The various
activities that abound these plazas show how Ilonggos
converse with one another. The interpersonal nature
of these activities can allow for the establishment of
commonality between and among people.
Table 5.0 List of activities that Ilonggos do when
they go to the Plaza
ACTIVITIES THAT ILONGGO RESPONDENTS DO IN
MOLO PLAZA and PLAZA LIBERTAD
Personal - relax, unwind, rest, transit point for other errands
in other places and other business transactions, eat, have
coffee, pray, meditate
Educational - study, discuss assignments and school
projects, practice for school activities
Recreational and Sports-related - exercise, jog,
recreation, play sports
Social - wait for colleagues at work, meet-up place for
friends and members of the family, bonding with friends and
colleagues, discuss with friends and colleagues, catching
up, talk to friends and colleagues and fellow retirees, date,
talk about religion
In public spaces, there is a vast array of messages
being exchanged considering that conversations are
an example of an outdoor social activity. Conversation
topics can range from things that are personal, private,
and confidential to health, hopes, and finances.
Molo Plaza and Plaza Libertad are hosts to
these messages that are continuously conveyed
throughout the day by the Ilonggos who would either
have a leisurely walk or as a place where they have
to do their school works, etc. As aforementioned,
these plazas afford the Ilonggos an avenue where
they can do various activities that would allow them to
communicate either with their friends, colleagues, etc.
Interestingly, the typical topics during conversations
among Ilonggos in Molo plaza and Plaza Libertad
vary from a more intimate and personal to general and
public topics (see Table 6.0). Personal topics include
life, school, family/household, vacation, relationships,
hobbies, employment, health, and gossips. General
and public topics include government, vices/crime,
religion, and community concerns.
These daily life conversations of the Ilonggos
(i.e. their problems, experiences, plans, and
challenges) being exchanged in the public spaces
can be considered personal and intimate. In Molo
Plaza some respondents mentioned, “randomness,
daily life experiences, talking about work problems”,
“inagyan sa kabuhi” (life experiences), “problema nga
makit-an” (problems seen), “istorya sa pangabuhi,
about sa problema sang senior” (life stories,
problems of Senior Citizens), “pangabuhi, problema,
kon ano ang maayo” (life, problems, whatever is
good). Furthermore, in Plaza Libertad, respondents
stated, “life, sentiments in life”, “pangabuhi” (way of
life), “gakinatabo sa balay” (what is happening in the
house).
Ilonggos find the plazas as convenient, if not
ideal avenues for these thoughts to be shared
and be a part of their communicative experiences.
Such ease of having these intimate conversations
can be ascribed to the company that the Ilonggos
find themselves with when going to these plazas
– friends, classmates, sons, daughters, brothers,
sisters, all relate to the familial character of the
person or persons that they interact with. It is this
familial character that allows for the creation of an
intimate, personal setting for the Ilonggos despite
the public nature of the spaces that these topics are
being exchanged; and one can only imagine how
these Ilonggos converse with one another in a soft-
spoken manner coupled with endearments.
One social value that public space offers to
children and young adults is the chance for them
to “learn some of the rules of communal life and
play” (Worpole & Knox, 2008). Some parks in the
U.S. have been extending programs for the youth
and adolescents in terms of self-esteem building -
Central Park’s North Meadow Recreation Center,
creativity - Garfield Park, and leadership skills -
Prospect Park, Brooklyn (Turner, 2004). Public
spaces provide the youth the opportunity to engage
in life – “…by observing, mimicking, studying,
and crowding together with different categories of
adults” as well as their fellow youth (Lieberg, 1995).
Public spaces not only contribute to the physical
well-being of the youth but also provide a venue for
“peer support and socialization” through numerous
activities such as talking to other people, sports, and
studying (Boudreau et al., 2015).
 Parcon, J.V.E. / Phil. J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 25: 18-44 (2020) 37

Table 6.0 Usual topics of conversations among Ilonggos in the plaza

TOPICS OF CONVERSATIONS IN PUBLIC MOLO PLAZA
SPACES PLAZA LIBERTAD

Life - life problems, life in general, day to day life

experiences, plans in life, future life plans, life 18 11
challenges and experiences, getting old
School - assignments, exams, lessons at school,
13 12
school work

Family/Household - family, parents, family

6 5
problems, household problems

Vacation - vacation plans, leisure, past vacations 5 1

Relationships - lovelife, relationships, friendship,

6 3
friends

Government - governance, elections, politics,

5
history
Hobbies - hobbies, music, plants, movies 4 2

Vices/Crime - vices (drinking, smoking), crime and

4
illegal drugs

Religion - church, religion 3 1

Employment - work, job application, ways/means

2 3
to earn money, work problems, salary

Health - health, health issues/problems 2

Gossips - gossips, jokes 2

Community concerns - cleanliness, community

1 2
order

Topics about school and schoolwork exist in the
identified plazas of Iloilo, as a result of the usual
presence of the youth in the plazas and the proximity
of schools in these plazas. A lot of students would
take advantage of such proximity of the plazas to
their schools that it becomes a place where they can
discuss their school works after class. In the Hanoi
Youth Public Space study, proximity is one factor that
interests the youth to go to public spaces ((Boudreau
et al., 2015). Despite the public nature of the plazas
where, at most, cannot seemingly offer the required
concentration and quietness when a student has
to finish his or her school work, it rather presents a
different scenario to them where they would look at
the plaza and the different ambiance or atmosphere
that these spaces offer as one of the ideal places
where discussion of school lessons and assignments
can be fostered.
In Plaza Libertad, most student respondents
mentioned these, “sched (schedule) in school, high
school life, studies, struggles as a student, lessons
in school, school gangs, family problems, and school
activities.” On the other hand, in Molo Plaza, some
student respondents stated these, “about school
projects, assignments, crushes, friendship, lessons
sa (at) school, about assignments, exams, love life,
mga nabudlayan (something that is difficult) kag (and)
mga assignments.”
Topics relating to the family likewise comprise
the usual conversations that Ilonggos share in the
plazas. It is from this sense that the concept of
family as the basic unit of society is expanded from a
supposed intimate concept to a more public concept.
An example of this is a statement from a respondent
saying, “pangabuhi - kabataan, wala ga-tahod,
gabulig, nanay nga pigado” (living – children who do
not agree, help (within the house), a mother who is
poor). Another respondent from Plaza Libertad stated
this, “gakinatabo sa balay” (what is happening in the
house). These responses exemplify how Ilonggos
can be able to extend personal topics such as about
family for discussions in a public space like the plaza.

38 Parcon, J.V.E. / Phil. J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 25: 18-44 (2020)
The rest of the topics include talks or discussions
about leisure activities, relationships, hobbies, music,
movies, governance, election, politics, religion, work
and employment, health, cleanliness and community
order, and crime, all reflect the diversity of messages
being shared among Ilonggos in the selected plazas
in Iloilo City. McDougall (1927) as cited by Cherry
(1957) highlighted communication in a way that:
Communication renders true social life
practicable, for communication means
organizations. Communications have enabled
the social unit to grow, from the village to the
town, to the modern city-state, until today we
see organized systems of mutual dependence
grown to cover whole hemispheres.
(McDougall, 1927, as cited by Cherry, 1957,
p.4)
“Information exchange helps maintain kinship
and friendship networks and thus cements the
social bonds among members of a community”
(Crowhurst Lennard, 1995).” These conversation
topics exchanged among Ilonggos in Molo Plaza and
Plaza Libertad show how plazas serve as an ideal
avenue for interpersonal communication to thrive and
exist. It can be seen that these conversations flourish
in a place where access is afforded to everyone and
anyone and in a way reflects how Ilonggos situate
themselves as members of the community. Perhaps,
it is the convenient and accessible nature of these
plazas in Iloilo City that makes it probable for these
topics to be shared and discussed, that the rather
abstract thoughts on life, relationships, family, religion
can eventually be manifested in these public spaces,
can be encoded and decoded in a way that it does
not provide any limitation nor restriction, but rather
a fashionably free discussion were exchanges of
topics no matter how intimate these can be, does not
necessarily mete out discrimination or suppression.
On the other hand, feedback is an element in
a communication process that mainly emanates
from the receiver of the message. It “refers to those
responses of the receiver that shape and alter the
subsequent messages of the source” (Dominick,
2002). It is from this definition where communication
can be seen as a two-way process rather than linear
where the source maintains its role as the origin
of the message. Of course, Dominick would have
highlighted eventually how the “feedback represents
a reversal of the flow of communication.” This is the
point where the source becomes the receiver, and
the receiver becomes the source. Considering that
communication is after all the sharing of meaning,
the receiver must convey his or her reaction towards
the message. This provides an opportunity for
the source of the message to assess whether the
message originally sent was understood. Ultimately,
without the presence of feedback, there would be
no sort of affirmation of whether the message was
received, and understood. It is from these functions
of the feedback as an element in the communication
process that depicts how the reversals of the roles
happen between the source and the receiver and why
such reversal is deemed necessary.
Public spaces can provide a very suitable context
for endless feedback amongst topics being shared.
In a typical interpersonal communication scenario
among individuals in a plaza, discussions are very
much unrestricted, allowing for the free flow and
exchange of ideas. As in the case of Ilonggos who
engage in interpersonal communication activities in
the plaza, most of them affirm that topics being shared
are discussed between them and the recipients in
such conversations (see Table 7.0).
Table 7.0 Breakdown of respondents who either discuss
or do not discuss topics during a conversation
DISCUSSION OF
MOLO PLAZA PLAZA LIBERTAD
THE TOPICS
YES 32 17
NO 15 6
Did not answer 13 32
Although there is a significant number of Ilonggos
who did not confirm such activity, the reasons of
those who engage in the discussion of topics can be
significant in highlighting the role of the plaza as an
ideal context for these conversations.
Topics being discussed in Molo Plaza and Plaza
Libertad by the Ilonggo respondents are either
personal or public. In Molo Plaza, personal topics
being discussed include problems in life, life in
general, day to day life experiences, future life plans,
life challenges, and experiences, getting old, family
and household problems, relationships, ways/means
to earn money, work problems, salary, cleanliness of
the surroundings. While public topics being discussed
in Molo Plaza include elections, politics, history, crime
and illegal drugs, church, religion, and cleanliness of
the surroundings.
 Parcon, J.V.E. / Phil. J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 25: 18-44 (2020)
A respondent in Molo Plaza mentioned that there
is a need to discuss the topic to fully understand what
the topic is all about, “depende kon budlay gina-
discuss” (it depends if it (topic) is difficult then it needs
to be discussed). Another respondent mentioned,
“gina discuss para maintindihan pa gid” ((topic) is
being discussed so it can be further understood).
Still, another respondent mentioned the need to
discuss topics coupled with examples, “ginadetail
with example” (details are provided with examples).
In Plaza Libertad on the other hand, both
personal and public topics are being discussed.
However, respondents do not see the need to further
discuss the following personal topics with their peers
or colleagues whenever they are in the plaza: school,
family, work, experiences, challenges in life, family
problems, school activities, and problems at home.
Moreover, some respondents from Plaza
Libertad affirmed the need to discuss a topic, by way
of, “examples, details, give details and comparison,
clear discussion.” Providing examples during a
conversation, respondents said, provide for clarity,
“hatag examples para klaro (give examples so that
everything is clear), talk in details para tawhay kag
athag (talk in details so that everything is clear).
Another mentioned that topics are discussed and
details are fleshed out, “gina pahat-pahat or isa-isa”
(it is fleshed out).
Furthermore, some respondents see the need
to discuss the topic especially if it necessitates the
need to identify such solutions. As indicated by some
respondents in Molo Plaza: “para masolusyonan” (to
identify solutions), “para makapangita paagi” (to find
a way), “gina isa-isa dabi ang problema para magaan
solusyon kag tawhay paminsaron kag tagipusuon mo
kay kalaw-ay taguon” (the problem is identified so that
solution can be given and the mind and heart are free
from worry since it is not good to keep it (problem)
within oneself. Discussions are necessary to allow
for the expression of one. Some respondents allow
for discussions so that they can “para mapautwas gid
ang sakit sang buot” (express the ill feelings), “para
mashare mo man imo gina-agyan para marelieve man
imo ginabatyag” (to be able to share what a person
went through and he/she can relieve himself of such
ill feelings). Another respondent further mentioned
that discussions are necessary, “para magaan ka
tiempo ipabatyag imo balatyagon, gaan kaathagan”
(opportunity to express oneself can be provided and
clarity can be achieved).
39
Studies have shown that talking to someone
about a problem or expressing one’s feelings can
help especially when one is looking for a solution
(Ravenscraft, 2020). Also known as affect labeling,
“putting feelings into words…can attenuate emotional
experiences,” (Torre & Lieberman, 2018) particularly
negative emotional experiences (Lieberman et al.,
2007). As such, not only that public space like the
plaza “offers full sensory involvement” but also it
“provides emotional prospects not available through
media technology in the privacy of one’s home”
(Drucker & Gumpert, 1991).
On the other hand, the only reasons why topics
may not necessarily be discussed can be because of
the recipient not being vocal of his or her opinions, or
the topic itself does not warrant any merit for further
discussion or attention, this was mentioned by one
respondent from Molo Plaza, “sometimes depende sa
topic”, (it depends on the topic). In this case, it can be
a case where the topic is not interesting. Or, it does
not give rise to a particular degree of significance to
the recipients that there is little to no concern at all
to be discussed in detail. Or, for some, they do not
see the need to discuss the topics at all, with some
respondents directly saying, “wala” (no) or “wala man
gid” (not really).
Overall, regardless of whether the topic is
personal or public, the plaza can be an ideal place
for people to engage in conversations, share topics,
and eventually discuss these topics. The variety of
personal topics being shared and discussed in the
plazas reflect the notion that no matter how public
these spaces are, yet it can be an ideal place and
context for these personal conversations to happen
and to be shared.
CONCLUSION
The presence of meaningful activities in a
public space consolidates the other dimensions –
inclusiveness, safety, comfort, and pleasurability, and
characterizes a public space that is conducive to the
social interaction of which conversations abound.
These conversations are even made more meaningful
because they can be shared among colleagues, in a
place where there is a perceived sense of security
and convenience, and in a place where everyone and
anyone is being afforded an unhindered opportunity
to take part in these conversations.

40 Parcon, J.V.E. / Phil. J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 25: 18-44 (2020)
Ilonggos, as with the other Filipinos, provide
high regard for communication that serves as a
tool to allow them to socialize, engage in business,
or simply express their individuality. These plazas
in Iloilo City serve as a very ideal setting for these
Ilonggo conversations to be shared as they primarily
foster a free-spirited communication where anyone
and everyone can gain access and be part of its daily
functionality – consistent with Worpole and Knox’s
(2008) discussion on the role of public spaces in the
social life of communities. This is reflective of Loyd
Pettegrew’s (1988) view of a communication context
– the communication element that defines what
communication behavior is possible.
Vikas Mehta’s five dimensions of public space
situate the plaza as a communication context
– from a physical dimension perspective. It is a
place where various situations occur. Inclusivity is
evident in Molo Plaza and Plaza Libertad as these
places cater to Ilonggos from different walks of life
– children, teenagers, the elderly, etc. Ilonggos have
this preference to socialize with people with whom
they are familiar. Communication in these plazas
flourishes in the presence or the company of friends,
family, or people that they recognize. Perhaps this is
one reason why conversations being shared in the
plazas are predominantly intimate since it carries
with it such personal themes like life experiences,
relationships, school activities – all of which refer to a
supposed existing degree of commonality at the very
onset of the communication process.
More than anything else, it is most interesting
to highlight how these public plazas afford Ilonggos
a kind of personal and intimate space where they
can all interact with their peers and colleagues, or
simply as a space where one can even engage in an
intrapersonal communicative experience as he or she
simply spends his or her time in the plaza to unwind
or relax, and be one with himself or herself as well
as the community. Comfort, safety, and pleasurability
manifest in these plazas by way of the various
structures, features, subspaces that all contribute to
the overall public space experience of the Ilonggos.
Plazas cater to meaningful activities. The various
interactions, conversations shared, stories formed
and exchanged are all founded from a meaningful
environment that, in the first place harnesses from
the members of the community. The functionality of
the plazas to the Ilonggos cannot be disregarded
or downplayed as it continues to foster discussions
whose utter significance to every Ilonggo is very much
evident. These plazas serve not only as a place, but
as a context that further enhances the primal act of
communication – two or more people talking freely,
without judgment or fear of being excluded; people
who can exchange meaningful ideas and opinions
without any fear of discrimination, of being labeled as
biased, or of being ascribed to any political color.
These conversations in the plazas of Iloilo City
provide a glimpse of the Ilonggo culture general and
the Ilonggo communicative behavior and experience
in particular. These conversations reflect who
the Ilonggos are, as a friend, a brother, a sister, a
parent, a student, a child, or even as a lover. These
roles are reflected in how every Ilonggo would take
advantage of the plazas and utilize these spaces
to communicate to their friends, family members,
classmates, or partner. It is in these plazas where the
conversations abound and make up or contribute to
the whole image of an Ilonggo. Although it might be
worthy to look into future studies that dwell on the
Ilonggo communicative behavior in public spaces
such as the plaza, a query on how modern Ilonggos
act or conduct themselves in various communication
scenarios especially in public spaces. Furthermore,
since this research discusses public plaza as a
communication context, it is also suggested to explore
the public plaza’s role in the other communication
elements such as the sender and the receiver, or as a
communication medium. It would be useful as well to
explore the role and significance of public plazas as a
space for communication and interaction during and
perhaps post-pandemic.
Finally, this study supports R.A. 10555 and
the Tourism Code of Iloilo City most especially in
highlighting and strengthening the role of both the
national and local government officials in continuously
protecting, preserving, and maintaining public spaces
such as plazas in Iloilo City; and to ensure that
the plazas are inclusive, can offer comfort, safety,
and pleasurability to Ilonggos and in turn, giving
every Ilonggo a safe place where they can engage
in meaningful activities in general and exchange
meaningful conversations and discussions with their
fellow Ilonggos in particular.
*Numbers reflected in Table 4.0 and Table 6.0 is
based on the number of times respondents indicated
an item as their answer. Each respondent can identify
a maximum of 5 answers.
 Parcon, J.V.E. / Phil. J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 25: 18-44 (2020)
REFERENCES
Aiello, G., & Tosoni. S. (2016). Going About the
City: Methods and Methodologies for Urban
Communication Research. International Journal
of Communication, 10(2016), 1252-1262.
Retrieved September 7, 2020, from https://ijoc.
org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/5416/1589
Alarcon, N. (2001). The Roles of the Plaza: The
Philippine Experience. In: Miao P. (eds)
Public Places in Asia Pacific Cities, The
GeoJournal Library, 60, 87-106. doi: https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-94-017-2815-7_4
Alcazaren, P. (2016, July 2). Plaza of Liberty and
booming Iloilo. The Philippine Star. Retrieved
January 28, 2021, from https://www.philstar.
com/lifestyle/modern-living/2016/07/02/1598522/
plaza-liberty-and-booming-iloilo
Bacvic, D. (2019, August 29). Neighbourhood living
rooms – we can learn a lot from European town
squares. The Conversation. Retrieved April
27, 2020, from https://theconversation.com/
neighbourhood-living-rooms-we-can-learn-a-lot-
from-european-town-squares-91065
Banerjee, T. (2001). The Future of Public Space:
Beyond Invented Streets and Reinvented Places.
Journal of the American Planning Association,
67(1), 9-24. doi: 10.1080/01944360108976352
Bendjedidi, S., Yassine Bada, Y., & Meziani, R.
(2019). Urban plaza design process using space
syntax analysis: El-Houria plaza, Biskra, Algeria.
International Review for Spatial Planning and
Sustainable Development A: Planning Strategies
and Design, (72), 125-142. doi: http://dx.doi.
org/10.14246/irspsda.7.2_125
Boudreau, J.A., Charton, L., Geertman, S., Labbé,
D., Pham, T.T.H., Anh, D.N. (2015). Youth-friendly
public spaces in Hanoi (Policy Brief). The Institut
national de la recherche scientifique (INRS,
Canada), HealthBridge (Canada and Vietnam),
Vietnam Academy of Social Sciences (VASS),
Institute of Sociology (IOS – VASS). Retrieved
May 21, 2021, from https://healthbridge.ca/
images/uploads/library/Sach_co_bia_EN_final.
pdf
41
Bratuškins, U., & Treija, S. (2017). Urban
Communication: The Uses of Public Space in
Riga Historical City Centre. Architecture and
Urban Planning, (13), 100-105. doi: 10.1515/aup-
2017-0014
Brown, N. (2001). Edward T. Hall, Proxemic Theory,
1966. CSISS Classics. UC Santa Barbara: Center
for Spatially Integrated Social Science. Retrieved
September 1, 2020, from https://escholarship.
org/uc/item/4774h1rm
Bunye: Designated rally parks uphold right to free
expression. (2006, May 2). GMA News Online.
Retrieved August 24, 2020, from https://www.
gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/5246/
bunye-designated-rally-parks-uphold-right-to-
free-expression/story/
Carmona, M. (2019). Principles for public space
design, planning to do better. Urban Design
International, 24(2019), 47-59. doi: https://doi.
org/10.1057/s41289-018-0070-3
Cherry, C. (1957). On Human Communication: A
Review, Survey, and a Criticism. Technology
Press of Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Chopik, W. J. (2017). Associations among relational
values, support, health, and well-being across
the adult lifespan. Personal Relationships, 24(2),
408-422. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12187
Coleman, S., Thumin, N., & Moss, G. (2016).
Researching Local News in a Big City: A
Multimethod Approach. International Journal of
Communication, 10(2016), 1351-1365. Retrieved
September 7, 2020, from https://ijoc.org/index.
php/ijoc/article/view/4282/1595
Corner, J., & Hawthorn, J.. (ed). (1980) Communication
Studies: An Introductory Reader. Edward Arnold
(Publishers) Ltd, Bedford Square, London.
Costamagna, F., Lind, R., & Stjernström, O. (2019).
Livability of Urban Public Spaces in Northern
Swedish Cities: The Case of Umeå. Planning
Practice & Research, 34(2), 131-148. doi:
10.1080/02697459.2018.1548215
Crowhurst Lennard, S. H. (1995). The Public Realm
and the Good City. In Crowhurst Lennard, S.H.,
& Lennard, H.L. (Eds.), Livable Cities Observed
(Chapter 5). Retrieved September 1, 2020,
from https://www.livablecities.org/articles/public-
realm-and-good-city#_edn1

42 Parcon, J.V.E. / Phil. J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 25: 18-44 (2020)
DeVito, J. (2013). The Interpersonal Communication
Book (13th ed). New Jersey: Pearson Education.
Dillner, L. (2017). Do friends make you happier
than family?. The Guardian. Retrieved May
25, 2021, from https://www.theguardian.com/
lifeandstyle/2017/jun/12/does-family-make-you-
happier-than-f riends
Dominick, J. (2002). The Dynamics of Mass
Communication: Media in the Digital Age (7th ed).
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ducharme, J. (2019). Why Spending Time With
Friends Is One of the Best Things You Can Do for
Your Health. Time. Retrieved May 25, 2021, from
https://time.com/5609508/social-support-health-
benefits/
Drucker, S.J., & Gumpert, G. (1991). Public Space
and Communication: The Zoning of Public
Interaction. Communication Theory, 1(4), 294-
310. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.1991.tb00022.x
Funtecha, H. (1992). The Making of a “Queen City”:
The Case of iloilo 1890s-1930s. Philippine
Quarterly of Culture and Society, 20(2/3), 107-
132. Retrieved September 5, 2020, from http://
www.jstor.org/stable/29792083
Funtecha, H. (2006, May 26). Describing what an
Ilonggo is. The News Today. Retrieved January
13, 2021, from https://www.thenewstoday.
info/2006/05/26/describing.what.an.ilonggo.
is.html
Funtecha, H. F. (2008, October 24). The plaza as a
historical and cultural space. The News Today.
Retrieved September 1, 2020, from http://
www.thenewstoday.info/2008/10/24/the.plaza.
as.a.historical.and.cultural.space.html
Funtecha, H., & Padilla, M. (1999). Historical
Landmarks and Monuments of Iloilo. The Toyota
Foundation, Inc., Tokyo, Japan.
Galingan, Z. (2009). Sustainability through Parks and
Open Spaces. Espasyo: Journal of Philippine
Architecture and Allied Arts, 1(1), 10-15.
Retrieved January 29, 2021, from https://ncca.
gov.ph/about-culture-and-arts/culture-profile/e-
books/
Gehl, J. (2011). Life Between Buildings: Using Public
Space. Washington DC, U.S.A.: Island Press.
Hall, E. (1982). The Hidden Dimension. New York,
U.S.A.: Anchor Books.
Hall, E., & Hall, M.R. (1990). Understanding
Cultural Differences. London: Nicholas Brealey
Publishing.
Hoffman, M. (2019, August 22). Civic Center
Public Space and Public Life Study 2019: A
Commonspace Beta Test. Retrieved September
7, 2020, from https://default.sfplanning.org/
Citywide/publicspace/docs/Hoffman_Civic_
Center_PSPL_Results_LONG_VERSION.pdf
Holland, C., Clark, A., Katz, J., & Peace, S. (2007).
Social interactions in urban public places. The
Policy Press, Beacon House, Queen’s Road,
Bristol, United Kingdom.
Iloilo City Government. (2013, August 16). Regulation
Ordinance No. 2013-329, Tourism Code of
Iloilo City. Retrieved January 26, 2021, from
https://iloilocity.gov.ph/main/wp-content/
uploads/2018/08/Tourism-Code-2013-with-2015-
Amendments.pdf
Iloilo City Government. (2017, December 31).
Attractions. Retrieved January 26, 2021, from
https://iloilocity.gov.ph/main/attractions/
Jagannath, T. (2016, August 23). The Importance of
Public Spaces. Medium. Retrieved February 5,
2021, from https://medium.com/interviews-and-
articles-on-art-public-spaces/the-importance-of-
public-spaces-5bb49ba6c000
Jalaladdini, S., & Oktay, D. (2012). Urban Public
Spaces and Vitality: A Socio-Spatial Analysis
in the Streets of Cypriot Towns. Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 35, 664-674. doi: https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.02.135
Knudsen, J.D. (2017). Friends More Than Their
Parents. Greater Good. Retrieved May 25, 2021,
from https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/
item/when_teens_need_their_friends_more_
than_their_parents
Lefebvre, H. (1991). The Production of Space (D.
Nicholson-Smith, Trans.). Basil Blackwell,
Oxford, U.K., & Cambridge, U.S.A. (original work
published 1974).
Lieberg, M. (1995). Teenagers and Public Space.
Communication Research, 22(6), 720-722. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1177/009365095022006008
 Parcon, J.V.E. / Phil. J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 25: 18-44 (2020) 43

Lieberman, M.D., Eisenberger, N.I., Crockett, M.J., Pendon, L. (2013, June 19). Historic Plaza Libertad
Tom, S.M., Pfeifer, J.H., Way, B.M. (2007). Putting up for rehab. SunStar Philippines. Retrieved
feelings into words: affect labeling disrupts January 29, 2021, from https://www.sunstar.
amygdala activity in response to affective stimuli. com.ph/article/290052/Business/Historic-Plaza-
Psychol Sci, 18(5):421-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1467- Libertad-up-for-rehab
9280.2007.01916.x
Pendon, L. (2014, May 22). City heritage sites up
Matejowsky, T. (2000). The Privatization of Public for restoration. SunStar Philippines. Retrieved
Plazas in the Philippines: Three Cases from January 29, 2021, from https://www.sunstar.com.
Pangasinan. Philippine Quarterly of Culture & ph/article/345649/Business/City-heritage-sites-
Society, 28(2000), 263-300. Retrieved May 21, up-for-restoration
2021, from https://www.jstor.org/stable/29792464
Pettegrew, L.S. (1988). The importance of context
Matsaganis, M. (2016). Multi- and Mixed-Methods in applied communication research. Southern
Approaches to Urban Communication Research: Speech Communication Journal, 53(4), 331-338.
ASynthesis and the Road Ahead. International doi: 10.1080/10417948809372734
Journal of Communication, 10(2016), 1331-1350.
Pfeiffer, T.S. (1980). Behaviour and Interaction in Built
Retrieved September 7, 2020, from https://ijoc.
Space. Built Evironment, 6(1), 35-50. Retrieved
org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/3923/1594
September 7, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/
Mehta, V. (2014). Evaluating Public Space. Journal of stable/23286084
Urban Design, 19(1), 53-88. doi:10.1080/135748
Philippine Statistics Authority. (n.d.). Retrieved May
09.2013.854698
21, 2021, from http://202.90.134.34/classification/
Memarovic, N., & Langheinrich , M. (2010). Enhancing psoc/?q=psoc/major
Community Interaction in Public Spaces Through
Ravenscraft, E. (2020, April 3). Why Talking About
Situated Public Displays. PD-Net Project.
Our Problems Helps So Much (and How to Do
Retrieved April 30, 2020, from http://citeseerx.ist.
It). The New York Times. Retrieved May 21,
psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.712.314
2021, from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/03/
7&rep=rep1&type=pdf
smarter-living/talking-out-problems.html
Micek, M., & Staszewska, S. (2019). Urban and
Republic Act No. 10555. (n.d.). Retrieved January
Rural Public Spaces: Development Issues and
26, 2021, from https://www.officialgazette.gov.
Qualitative Assessment. Bulletin of Geography.
ph/2013/05/15/republic-act-no-10555/
Socio-economic Series, 45(45), 75-93. doi: http://
doi.org/10.2478/bog-2019-0025 Roll, J. (2016). Communication in the public space:
Attention and media use. Politics, Civil Society
Miller, E. (Ed.). (2012). Gender Issue Guide: Urban
and Participation: Media and Communications
Planning and Design. UN-Habitat (United
in a Transforming Environment. 11, 231-242.
Nations Human Settlement Program. Nairobi,
Retrieved April 30, 2020, from http://www.
Kenya. Retrieved January 29, 2021, from https://
researchingcommunication.eu/book11chapters/
unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/download-
C15_ROLL201516.pdf
manager-files/Gender%20Responsive%20
Urban%20Planning%20and%20Design.pdf Ronch, J. L. (2012). Spaces and interpersonal
communication. Long-Term Living, 6-7. Retrieved
Molo: Athens of the Philippines. (2012, July 27).
May 9, 2020 from http://smd.sjtu.edu.cn/Public/
Daily Guardian. Retrieved January 26, 2021,
sub/2/download/24-Spaces and interpersonal
from https://archive.dailyguardian.com.ph/molo-
communication.pdf
athens-of-the-philippines/
Salvilla, R. S. (2007, July 26). Molo: Athens of
Pendon, L. (2013, June 4). Aquino signs Iloilo tourism
the Philippines. The News Today. Retrieved
law. SunStar Philippines. Retrieved September
September 1, 2020, from http://www.
1, 2020, from https://www.sunstar.com.ph/
thenewstoday.info/2007/07/26/molo.athens.
article/287652/Business/Aquino-signs-Iloilo-
of.the.philippines.html
tourism-law

44 Parcon, J.V.E. / Phil. J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 25: 18-44 (2020)
Seattle Department of Transportation. (2018).
Public Life Study 2018 Summary Report
(Rep.). Retrieved August 24, 2020,
f r o m h t t p s : / / w w w. s e a t t l e . g o v / D o c u m e n t s /
Departments/SDOT/UrbanDesignProgram/
PublicLifeStudy_2018Summary_Report2(0).pdf
SM City donates children’s playground at Molo plaza.
(2016, February 19). Iloilo Today. Retrieved
January 28, 2021, from https://www.iloilotoday.
com/sm-city-donates-childrens-playground-a/
Tayona, G. (2019a, November 16). New ordinance
lists dos, don’ts in plazas. Panay News.
Retrieved September 1, 2020, from https://www.
panaynews.net/new-ordinance-lists-dos-donts-
in-plazas/
Tayona, G. (2019b, October 15). ‘PLAZAS BEYOND
COMMERCE OF MEN’ No more trade fairs
beginning 2020. Panay News. Retrieved January
29, 2021, from https://www.panaynews.net/
plazas-beyond-commerce-of-men-no-more-
trade-fairs-beginning-2020/
Tejero, C. (2017, February 11). The Ilonggos –
This Happy Breed. Philippine Daily Inquirer.
Retrieved January 13, 2021, from https://www.
pressreader.com/philippines/philippine-daily-inqu
irer-1109/20170211/282896615369242
Tonnelat, S. (2010). The sociology of urban public
spaces. In Wang, H., Savy, M., & Zhai, G. (eds.),
Territorial Evolution and Planning Solution:
Experiences from China and France, Paris,
Atlantis Press. Retrieved from http://stephane.
tonnelat.free.fr/Welcome_files/SFURP-Tonnelat-
published.pdf
Torre, J.B., & Lieberman, M.D. (2018). Putting
Feelings Into Words: Affect Labeling as Implicit
Emotion Regulation. Emotion Review, 10(2), 116-
124. doi: //doi.org/10.1177/1754073917742706
Author:
Jude Vincent E. Parcon, Division of Humanities, College of Arts and Sciences, University of the Philippines
Visayas, Miagao 5023,Iloilo; jeparcon@up.edu.ph
Turner, M.A. (2004). Urban Parks as Partners in Youth
Development (Policy Brief). The Urban Institute
and The Wallace Foundation. Retrieved May
21, 2021, from https://www.wallacefoundation.
org/knowledge-center/pages/urban-parks-as-
partners-in-youth-development.aspx
Uychoco, M.T.A., & Santos, M.L. (2018).
Communication for Society: Purposive
Communication. Rex Book Store, Inc., Sta. Mesa
Heights, Quezon City, Philippines.
Vivas, J. (2020, October 30). Iloilo is the center of
universe. Manila Bulletin. Retrieved January 13,
2021, from https://mb.com.ph/2020/10/30/iloilo-
is-the-center-of-the-universe/
Vivian, J. (1991). The Media of Mass Communication.
Allyn and Bacon, A Division of Simon & Schuster,
Inc., Needham Heights, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
Weijs-Perrée, M, Dane, G., & van den Berg, P. (2020).
Analyzing the Relationships between Citizens’
Emotions and their Momentary Satisfaction in
Urban Public Spaces. Sustainability, 12(7921),
1-20. doi: 10.3390/su12197921
Whyte, W.H. (1980). The Social Life of Small Urban
Spaces. New York: Project for Public Spaces.
Worpole, K., & Knox, K. (2008). The social value of
public spaces. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation,
The Homestead, York, United Kingdom.
Zakariya, K., Harun, N.Z., & Mansor, M. (2014).
Spatial Characteristics of Urban Square
and Sociability: A review of the City Square,
Melbourne. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 153(2014), 678-688. doi: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.10.099