Hello dear forum,
we can’t decide whether to choose the dining table measuring 2 m x 1 m (6.6 ft x 3.3 ft) or 2.20 m x 1 m (7.2 ft x 3.3 ft).
We would actually prefer if there were 3 chairs on each side and none at the head or foot of the table. However, the chairs can’t be pushed under the table because the table legs get in the way. That’s why we’re unsure if the table with the chairs will take up too much space. The chairs are 60 cm (24 inches) deep. The table is positioned so the chairs are on the west and east sides.
What do you think??
we can’t decide whether to choose the dining table measuring 2 m x 1 m (6.6 ft x 3.3 ft) or 2.20 m x 1 m (7.2 ft x 3.3 ft).
We would actually prefer if there were 3 chairs on each side and none at the head or foot of the table. However, the chairs can’t be pushed under the table because the table legs get in the way. That’s why we’re unsure if the table with the chairs will take up too much space. The chairs are 60 cm (24 inches) deep. The table is positioned so the chairs are on the west and east sides.
What do you think??
As I understood the original poster, it’s not about sitting, but about placing. Those are still two different things if you don’t have the house full of guests every day.
They are positioned facing each other for decoration, but can be rearranged if needed, for example, during a card game night.
They are positioned facing each other for decoration, but can be rearranged if needed, for example, during a card game night.
ypg schrieb:
As I understood the original poster, it’s not about sitting, but about placement. Those are two different things, especially if you don’t have the house full of guests every day.
They are arranged opposite each other for decoration; if needed, for example for a card game, they can be rearranged. That’s correct. That’s how we have it now. And unfortunately, it will stay that way because, as I said, the table is too good to be replaced.
Still, if we needed a new one, it would be at least 2.40 meters (7 ft 10 in), preferably between 2.80 and 3.00 meters (9 ft 2 in and 9 ft 10 in).
Always assuming the space allows for it.
H
hampshire13 Jun 2020 22:50For your wish to place the chairs 3 and 3 opposite each other, the table length is not the only decisive factor. Chair width, seat height, and—as you already mentioned—the position of the table legs are additional parameters.
Of course, you can fit 3 chairs side by side at a 2m (6 ft 7 in) table. When sitting down to eat, it will be "cozy."
Of course, you can fit 3 chairs side by side at a 2m (6 ft 7 in) table. When sitting down to eat, it will be "cozy."
hampshire schrieb:
For your idea of placing the chairs in pairs opposite each other, the table length is not the only important factor. Chair width, seat height, and—as you already mentioned—the position of the table legs are additional parameters.
Of course, you can fit three chairs side by side at a 2m (6 ft 7 in) table. Sitting down to eat will then be "cozy." Cozy. True.
A
Alessandro19 Jun 2020 08:30Wouldn't it be easiest to buy an extendable table?