Philiine Journal o Social Sciences and Humanities ...

Philippine Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities University of the Philippines VisayasVolume 25, 18- 44 (2020)

Istorya sa Plasa: The Ilonggo Plaza as a Communication ContextJude 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 against the government (Banerjee, 2001). In Riga Old Town, a historical city center in Latvia, several uses of public spaces are identified including, a place where people can converge on special occasions, sports, relaxation as well as recreation activities, and economic activities (Bratuskins & Treija, 2017). In Aylesbury, England, public spaces are ideal locations for people to meet in a “neutral ground in planned and unplanned ways…where different groups within and between different age groups co-exist and observe each other even if they have little direct interaction” (Holland, Clark, Katz & Peace, 2007).

The Plaza in the Philippines

In the Philippines, the plaza is a very good example of a public space. Roughly 12 decades after more than 300 years of Spanish colonization of the Philippines, Filipinos still enjoy the abundance of the Spanish culture that transcended time and generations. The plaza is a reminder of how the country has seen waves of colonization – from the Spaniards, the Americans, and the Japanese (Alarcon, 2001). Norma Alarcon also stated that the plaza’s existence in the various communities across the Philippines is an indelible historical landmark that continuously serves a significant role to the Filipinos then and now. She further mentioned that the plaza, although a “mark of a foreign colonizer… has become a permanent fixture and an organic element in towns and cities all over the Philippines,” further saying that in fact, “no Filipino community is complete without one.”

The plaza in the Philippines is considered as the center of a complex surrounded by several key infrastructures – “an open square known as the plaza proper, the municipal government building, and the stone cathedral and adjunct buildings maintained by the Catholic Church”, (Matejowsky, 2000). This particular layout is a way for the Spaniards to introduce the Catholic faith by letting the natives build their houses in the spaces within the plaza complex (Funtecha, 2008).

The typical plaza has a performance area, recreational facilities, playgrounds, as well as pathwalks (Matejowsky, 2000). As an important public space in the lives of the Filipinos, the plaza has varied functions – it is where Filipinos can socialize, celebrate fiestas, or a place for various religious organizations to congregate, or where plays and other

forms of entertainment are held (Funtecha, 2008). Henry F. Funtecha also mentioned that the plaza is a convenient space where people can sell their wares, or, on some occasions, a very good space for sports and other recreational activities. He added that its functionality is continuously redefined for the longest time.

Plazas serve as a vehicle for socialization among members of the community. It is an ideal space for Filipinos to interact and communicate. With all these functionalities that the plaza offers, it cannot be denied that it is also a witness to the various conversations that transpire among Filipinos.

Molo Plaza and Plaza Libertad

Iloilo City, as the capital of the province of Iloilo in the Western Visayas region, is home to several plazas found in the various districts – Jaro, Mandurriao, Molo, City Proper, and Lapaz among others. Molo Plaza in the district of Molo and Plaza Libertad in the City Proper of Iloilo are the two most popular plazas where Ilonggos usually frequent. Regulation Ordinance No. 2013-329, also known as the Tourism Code of Iloilo City, consider these plazas, together with the other sites and structures mentioned in the ordinance, as destinations or, “sites of greater historic, cultural or economic significance” (Regulation Ordinance No. 2013-329, 2013).

With the enactment of the Tourism Code of Iloilo City, Molo Plaza and Plaza Libertad are declared as “historical and cultural landmarks or sites” and that the upkeep of these two plazas “should always be the concern of the City Government of Iloilo City” (Regulation Ordinance No. 2013-329, 2013). These plazas are considered as part of the Cultural Heritage Tourism Zone under Republic Act 10555 signed into law on 15 May 2013 by former President Benigno Aquino Jr. These public spaces, together with Jaro Cathedral, Molo Church, the Iloilo City Central Business District or Calle Real, Fort San Pedro and the Jaro Plaza Complex have been, according to R.A. 10555, “accorded priority development by the Department of Tourism or DOT” (Pendon, 2013).

Molo Plaza is situated in the district of Molo. One of the plaza’s key features is the gazebo where six statues of Greek goddesses Aphrodite (love and beauty), Athena (war), Artemis (wilderness, hunt, and fertility), Demeter (agriculture), Hera (marriage), and Hestia (domesticity) can be found (“Molo: Athens of the Philippines”, 2012). There is a basketball court and a

Parcon, J.V.E. / Phil. J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 25: 18-44 (2020)20

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)


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).

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.

Photos taken on June 25, 2018A view of the center area of Plaza Libertad wherethe monument of Dr. Jose Rizal is situated.Lower right photo is the Iloilo City Hall.


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


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

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.


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-Perree, 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

Figure 1.0 Vikas Mehta’s five dimensions /aspects of public space

space”(DeVito, 2013). A positive atmosphere in a public space contributes to “more positive emotional states” (Weijs-Perree, 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,


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

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.


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

Figure 2.0 The conceptual representation of plaza as context

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.

PLAZA TEENAGERS

13-19 y.o YOUNG ADULTS

20-29 ADULTS

30-59 ELDERLY

60-up TOTAL 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 Libertad 3 2 3 9 6 6 4 5 3 1 3 2 2 1 5 0 55 TOTAL 5 4 12 17 9 10 8 11 9 4 4 4 5 3 9 1 115

Table 1.0 Breakdown of respondents as per age, sex, and time of access


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

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


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


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).

PLAZA TEENAGERS

13-19 y.o YOUNG ADULTS

20-29 y.o. ADULTS 30-59 y.o.

ELDERLY 60 and above

MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE Molo Plaza 4 17 7 10 9 3 5 5

Plaza Libertad 5 12 12 9 4 5 3 5

TOTAL 9 29 19 19 13 8 8 10 38 38 21 18

Table 1.1 Ilonggo respondents categorized by sex, and age groups

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.

PLAZA MORNING

8:00 AM-12:00NN AFTERNOON

12:01PM-5:00PM MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE

Molo Plaza 14 18 11 17 Plaza

Libertad 14 15 10 16

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).

Table 1.2 Respondents as per the time of access and sex


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

OCCUPATION Molo Plaza Plaza Libertad TOTAL /

Percentage MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE

Did not disclose 7 8 15 / 13.04%

Unemployed 4 6 10 / 8.70%

Students 4 17 6 14 41 / 35.65%

Elementary Occupations* (Utility Worker, Laundrywoman, Construction Worker, Plumber, Draftsman, Restaurant crew, Vendor)

6 4 4 1 15 / 13.05%

Service and Sales Workers* (Merchandizer, Cashier, Beautician/Masseur, Embalmer/Mortician, Caregiver/Caretaker, Security Guard)

2 4 2 3 11 / 9.57%

Government Workers (Public School Teacher, Barangay Councilor, Government office employee)

1 2 2 5 / 4.35%

Technicians and Associate Professionals* (Supervisor, Church Choir Member, Pastry Maker, Tattoo Artist)

2 1 2 5 / 4.35%

Managers* (Businessman – 1211) 3 1 4 / 3.48% Plant and Machine Operators, and Assemblers* (Pedicab/Jeepney Driver) 2 2 4 / 3.48%

Craft and Related Trades Workers* (Mechanic) 2 2 / 1.74%

Retiree 1 1 2 / 1.74% Professionals* (Band Vocalist) 1 1 / 0.87%

TOTAL 25 35 24 31 115

Table 2.0 Distribution of respondents per occupation

* Occupations were categorized based on the 2012 Philippine Standard Occupational Classification (PSOC) of the Philippine Statistics Authority


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).

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

USUAL COMPANY IN GOING TO THE PLAZA

MOLO PLAZA

PLAZA LIBERTAD

No response 15 4

Alone 2 21

Friends 20 15 Family members - father / mother / brother / sister / son / daughter / children / grand son/daughter

8 2

Husband / wife 2 1

Relatives (cousins, uncle, tita) 1 1

Boyfriend/Girlfriend 5 1

Classmates 4 6

Colleagues at work 3 4

TOTAL 60 55

Table 3.0 Usual company of Ilonggos in going to the Plazafacilities can be found within and around the Molo Plaza Complex and Plaza Libertad that all provide pleasure, safety, and comfort to the Ilonggos who frequent these public spaces. 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 Plaza Libertad that they frequently go to. The respondents were also asked why they frequent these locations.


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.

COMMON LOCATIONS REASONS FOR LOCATION

PREFERENCES AMONG MOLO PLAZA RESPONDENTS

REASONS FOR LOCATION PREFERENCES AMONG PLAZA

LIBERTAD RESPONDENTS

Gazebo/Center Area (Molo Plaza – gazebo with Greek

goddesses Plaza Libertad – where the

monument of Dr. Jose Rizal is located)

PLEASURABILITY: nami ang view (view is nice), damo tawo (presence of people), hindi magamo (not crowded), accessible/visible, lapad space (spacious) COMFORT: comfortable, relaxing, mabugnaw, maharon kag mahangin (area is cool, shaded, and breezy)

PLEASURABILITY: easy for practice, spacious, nakasanayan (accustomed to the area), makita ang view sa palibot (one can see the surrounding views), nami tan-awon (pleasant to look at) COMFORT: comfortable, mahangin (breezy), maka pahuway/manami pahuwayan (ideal place to relax), malinong (peaceful), mahandong (area is shaded)

Children’s playground and its surrounding benches

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 office), kung may kadtuan nga lapit (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: makalingaw (enjoyable)

Basketball court and its surrounding benches

PLEASURABILITY: makatambay (place to hangout), accessible, matan-aw basket (watch a basketball game) COMFORT: tawhay (relaxing), nice, mahangin (breezy)

PLEASURABILITY: makalingaw (enjoyable), makahampang (place to play), accessible, nami (nice/pleasant) COMFORT: mahangin (breezy), tawhay (relaxing)

Cafe/canteen area

PLEASURABILITY: nami ang spot (nice spot), kag maka istoryahanay (place to talk/converse), nakasanayan/naandan (accustomed) COMFORT: less distraction, wala masyado garot (not crowded), transasksyon sa kapehan (place to transact business), mabugnaw (cool), near food stalls, tawhay (relaxing), makakaon (place to eat), mahangin (breezy)

COMFORT: para makaon lunch (place to eat lunch), matawhay (relaxing), mahandong (area is shaded)

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


Benches across the Molo Police Station

PLEASURABILITY: may mga tawo (presence of people) SAFETY: para safe (feeling of safety)

Benches (random, specific location not indicated) typically placed under the trees or near

structures (figurines, etc.)

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 gid (one can see everything that is happening in the immediate surroundings), makaistoryahanay (place to talk) COMFORT: mahandong (area is shaded), mahangin (breezy), pahuwayan (place to relax), hindi mainit/bugnaw (cool)

PLEASURABILITY: accessible, easy for meet-up, COMFORT: maharon/handong (area is shaded), malinong (peaceful), mahangin (breezy), matawhay (relaxing)

Benches in front of the Molo church and convent/San Jose

church

PLEASURABILITY: because it is facing the church, makahulat sang ila ginabaantayan (ideal meeting place) COMFORT: comfort zone, mahangin (breezy), mabugnaw (cool)

PLEASURABILITY: maka-pray, may mga baligya (presence of stalls) COMFORT: mahandong (area is shaded), tawhay (relaxing), malinong (place is quiet), hindi mainit (cool)

Benches across the Molo Mansion

PLEASURABILITY: accessible COMFORT: mabugnaw (cool), relaxing, not too crowded, comfortable, tawhay (relaxing), mahangin (breezy)

Benches near the school

PLEASURABILITY: mas lapit (near/accessible) COMFORT: mabugnaw (cool)

Benches across a restaurant/convenience store

PLEASURABILITY: near and accessible to other surrounding places

Benches in front of a health center/clinic/pharmacy

PLEASURABILITY: Accessible to my house

PLEASURABILITY: lapit sa sakayan (accessible to transportation), makita ang mga jeep (jeepeneys can be seen/available), spacious, suited for practice, makalilingaw (enjoyable) COMFORT: mahandong (shaded area), mahangin (breezy), matawhay (relaxing), mabugnaw (cool)

Benches in front of the Iloilo City Hall and other nearby agencies

PLEASURABILITY: madali kadtuan (accessible), makita view sang City hall (Iloilo City hall can be seen) COMFORT: not crowded, bugnaw (cool), matawhay (relaxing)

Table 4.0 continued


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


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/cafe/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

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


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.

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).

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

Table 5.0 List of activities that Ilonggos do when they go to the Plaza

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


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.

TOPICS OF CONVERSATIONS IN PUBLIC SPACES

MOLO PLAZA

PLAZA LIBERTAD

Life - life problems, life in general, day to day life experiences, plans in life, future life plans, life challenges and experiences, getting old

18 11

School - assignments, exams, lessons at school, school work 13 12

Family/Household - family, parents, family problems, household problems 6 5

Vacation - vacation plans, leisure, past vacations 5 1

Relationships - lovelife, relationships, friendship, friends 6 3

Government - governance, elections, politics, history 5

Hobbies - hobbies, music, plants, movies 4 2

Vices/Crime - vices (drinking, smoking), crime and illegal drugs 4

Religion - church, religion 3 1

Employment - work, job application, ways/means to earn money, work problems, salary 2 3

Health - health, health issues/problems 2

Gossips - gossips, jokes 2

Community concerns - cleanliness, community order 1 2

Table 6.0 Usual topics of conversations among Ilonggos in the plaza


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).

DISCUSSION OF THE TOPICS MOLO PLAZA PLAZA LIBERTAD

YES 32 17

NO 15 6

Did not answer 13 32

Table 7.0 Breakdown of respondents who either discuss or do not discuss topics during a conversation

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.


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).

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.


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.


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., Labbe, 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

Bratuskins, 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


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: / / i lo i loci ty.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


Lieberman, M.D., Eisenberger, N.I., Crockett, M.J., Tom, S.M., Pfeifer, J.H., Way, B.M. (2007). Putting feelings into words: affect labeling disrupts amygdala activity in response to affective stimuli. Psychol Sci, 18(5):421-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01916.x

Matejowsky, T. (2000). The Privatization of Public Plazas in the Philippines: Three Cases from Pangasinan. Philippine Quarterly of Culture & Society, 28(2000), 263-300. Retrieved May 21, 2021, from https://www.jstor.org/stable/29792464

Matsaganis, M. (2016). Multi- and Mixed-Methods Approaches to Urban Communication Research: ASynthesis and the Road Ahead. International Journal of Communication, 10(2016), 1331-1350. Retrieved September 7, 2020, from https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/3923/1594

Mehta, V. (2014). Evaluating Public Space. Journal of Urban Design, 19(1), 53-88. doi:10.1080/13574809.2013.854698

Memarovic, N., & Langheinrich , M. (2010). Enhancing Community Interaction in Public Spaces Through Situated Public Displays. PD-Net Project. Retrieved April 30, 2020, from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.712.3147&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Micek, M., & Staszewska, S. (2019). Urban and Rural Public Spaces: Development Issues and Qualitative Assessment. Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series, 45(45), 75-93. doi: http://doi.org/10.2478/bog-2019-0025

Miller, E. (Ed.). (2012). Gender Issue Guide: Urban Planning and Design. UN-Habitat (United Nations Human Settlement Program. Nairobi, Kenya. Retrieved January 29, 2021, from https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/fi les/download-manager-fi les/Gender%20Responsive%20Urban%20Planning%20and%20Design.pdf

Molo: Athens of the Philippines. (2012, July 27). Daily Guardian. Retrieved January 26, 2021, from https://archive.dailyguardian.com.ph/molo-athens-of-the-philippines/

Pendon, L. (2013, June 4). Aquino signs Iloilo tourism law. SunStar Philippines. Retrieved September 1, 2020, from https://www.sunstar.com.ph/article/287652/Business/Aquino-signs-Iloilo-tourism-law

Pendon, L. (2013, June 19). Historic Plaza Libertad up for rehab. SunStar Philippines. Retrieved January 29, 2021, from https://www.sunstar.com.ph/article/290052/Business/Historic-Plaza-Libertad-up-for-rehab

Pendon, L. (2014, May 22). City heritage sites up for restoration. SunStar Philippines. Retrieved January 29, 2021, from https://www.sunstar.com.ph/article/345649/Business/City-heritage-sites-up-for-restoration

Pettegrew, L.S. (1988). The importance of context in applied communication research. Southern Speech Communication Journal, 53(4), 331-338. doi: 10.1080/10417948809372734

Pfeiffer, T.S. (1980). Behaviour and Interaction in Built Space. Built Evironment, 6(1), 35-50. Retrieved September 7, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23286084

Philippine Statistics Authority. (n.d.). Retrieved May 21, 2021, from http://202.90.134.34/classification/psoc/?q=psoc/major

Ravenscraft, E. (2020, April 3). Why Talking About Our Problems Helps So Much (and How to Do It). The New York Times. Retrieved May 21, 2021, from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/03/smarter-living/talking-out-problems.html

Republic Act No. 10555. (n.d.). Retrieved January 26, 2021, from https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2013/05/15/republic-act-no-10555/

Roll, J. (2016). Communication in the public space: Attention and media use. Politics, Civil Society and Participation: Media and Communications in a Transforming Environment. 11, 231-242. Retrieved April 30, 2020, from http://www.researchingcommunication.eu/book11chapters/C15_ROLL201516.pdf

Ronch, J. L. (2012). Spaces and interpersonal communication. Long-Term Living, 6-7. Retrieved May 9, 2020 from http://smd.sjtu.edu.cn/Public/sub/2/download/24-Spaces and interpersonal communication.pdf

Salvilla, R. S. (2007, July 26). Molo: Athens of the Philippines. The News Today. Retrieved September 1, 2020, from http://www.thenewstoday.info/2007/07/26/molo.athens.of.the.philippines.html


Seattle Department of Transportation. (2018). Public Life Study 2018 Summary Report (Rep.). Retrieved August 24, 2020, f romhttps: / /www.seatt le.gov/Documents/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-inquirer-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

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-Perree, 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

Author: Jude Vincent E. Parcon, Division of Humanities, College of Arts and Sciences, University of the Philippines

Visayas, Miagao 5023,Iloilo; [email protected]

Philiine Journal o Social Sciences and Humanities ...

Documents

Transcript of Philiine Journal o Social Sciences and Humanities ...