Dining table 2m or 2.20m... we are unsure

  • Erstellt am 2020-06-13 18:10:14

neutri80

2020-06-13 18:10:14
  • #1
Hello dear forum,

we can't decide whether to take the dining table 2mx1m or 2.20x1m.

We would actually prefer it if there were 3 chairs on each side and none at the top and bottom. However, the chairs cannot be pushed under the table because the table legs are in the way. Therefore, we are unsure if the table with the chairs takes up too much space. The chairs are 60cm deep. The table is positioned so that the chairs are on the west and east sides.

What do you think??
 

Ibdk14

2020-06-13 18:39:30
  • #2
Don't quite understand. You can't push the chairs completely under the table when not in use - at 200cm or even at 220? Can you sit close enough to the table or do the table legs get in the way even with three chairs?
 

Tarnari

2020-06-13 18:46:49
  • #3
If you want three next to each other, I would either go bigger/longer, or 2/2 and one at each end. We have 1.90 and three next to each other is way too tight. For comfortable sitting and eating, from my point of view, 30cm more for three chairs wouldn't make much difference either. That's 10cm more for each person. Still tight with six people at Christmas or so.
This annoys us a lot. We would like a bigger table. Our current one was expensive and very high quality.
We are too stingy for a new one...
 

guckuck2

2020-06-13 18:51:16
  • #4
I consider neither 2m nor 2.2m sufficient to comfortably seat three people.
 

ypg

2020-06-13 18:58:42
  • #5
There are tables where the legs are on the outside. Or in the middle. To each their own, as they need it.
 

Bertram100

2020-06-13 19:09:54
  • #6
I think it kind of kills the atmosphere when you sit like chickens on a ladder three side by side while the head of the table is still free. I would never plan it that way myself. If anything, then better 220 instead of 200. It’s really a bit more comfortable.
 
Oben