48' long dining table--2 chairs per side?

16 years ago

I planned a 28" wide X 48" long dining table in my kitchen. One side would have a banquette bench and across from it would be 2 chairs. But now, I'm finding that by the time I add space for the legs, the space left in between is more like 48" which makes it tough to squeeze in 2 chairs on that side. I wanted basic wood school house style chairs.

Do you think I can make 2 chairs on work on the 48" side?

If not, I could make the space more a square and use the bench for one side then chair on the end and a chair across from the bench. I need to seat 3 people.

Ideally I'd keep the 28" wide because this makes the table centered between on 2 windows.

Ideas?

Sort by:Oldest

Comments (8)

plllog
16 years ago
If you can find a "standard" sized chair (18" wide), it'll work, but it'll be tight. Generally, for banquet seating, one figures two feet per person. But if your table has legs you'll have less than two feet per person. If you have a pedestal, everyone will be battling the base, and it'll be hard to keep from tipping.

You could probably maximize the knee room by attaching one end to the wall and have a single center leg on the other end, but then you have to clean around it rather than being able to shift it. This is what I'd do if I had to make the same space work.

I'm just as worried about the 28". That doesn't leave any room on the table for serving dishes, and barely any for condiments, bread, cereal boxes, or whatever. How big are your plates? If they're 10", add 2" for not lapping over the edges and being able to get a finger between, and you're left with 4" down the middle. My plates are bigger.

In other words, this is basically a travel trailer dinette. It's very cozy, but you can make it work. Much better for breakfasts and snacks than actual dining, but even that can be managed.
fin1
16 years ago
I am using a folding table as a temporary kitchen table. It is 30 inches wide and I find that it is not wide enough. We end up putting our serving dishes on the counter for more space at the table. I think 28 inches is too narrow for a table if you plan to seat people on both sides.
Related Professionals
Raleigh Kitchen & Bathroom Designers · Ardmore Kitchen & Bathroom Designers · Muskogee Kitchen & Bathroom Designers · Albany Kitchen & Bathroom Designers · Santa Rosa Kitchen & Bathroom Designers · Lexington Kitchen Remodelers · Marietta Kitchen Remodelers · Pittsfield Kitchen Remodelers · Spanish Fork Kitchen Remodelers · Cowansville Kitchen Remodelers · Dallas Custom Countertops · Chicago Custom Countertops · Brattleboro Custom Countertops · Sheboygan Custom Countertops · Riverside Custom Countertops
eks6426
Original Author
16 years ago
Hmm, thanks for the advice. I've actually been measure tables in booths in restaurants and it seems a lot of them are 28". That's how I got the measurement.

I have a real dining room with a dining table that seats many. We use it for dinners but will probably use the kitchen for weekend breakfasts and lunches for all 3 of us then weekday lunches for just my husband and I.

I could probably fudge the dimensions a bit and do a 30" table and just have it overlap the banquette bench a bit more so that it still looks centered between the windows. I have pendant lights above that would look off if it wasn't centered too.

I could probably go a tiny bit longer maybe to 50" wide instead of 48". I can't go too much wider because the table is perpendicular to my main cabinet run which has the stove and right with 48" table I have 39" to the edge of the counter.
grlwprls
16 years ago
Ah, that's because most restaurants aren't "family style" - so it's just the plates and maybe a few condiments at the "head" of the table. Due to the narrow nature of our former shotgun double, we had a custom table made that is 36"x8'. We have to have a sideboard when it's more than just the three of us since my serving pieces can't ride the center of the table with our 11" 'everyday' plates.
brickmanhouse
16 years ago
I've just been researching this, because we need a new kitchen table.

As far as fitting two per side on a 48" long table, from personal experience, it's doable, but it is TIGHT. We have a 48" long table in our kitchen right now, and we've squeezed two per side occasionally for guests, but it isn't comfortable and not something I'd do long term.

Most standard 48" tables are either 30" in width, or 36" in width. When you bump up to a 60" long table, it's near impossible to find anything other than a 36" width or wider. So 30" wide is definitely narrow, but pretty common for a small table. If it works for you, go for it.

But I'd definitely try to do something else other than squeezing two diners regularly on a 48" length, if you have another option.
cheri127
16 years ago
How about a trestle table? More stable than a pedestal and less confining than 4 legs. I agree that 28" is too narrow if there's anything besides plates and glasses on the table.
writersblock (9b/10a)
16 years ago
have a 45" table and that would be impossible. 48 might do it, but not at all comfortably, unless you have a pedestal or a trestle.
midwifekim
16 years ago
We have 45" between the legs of our table and the 3 and 5 year old kits fit perfectly there. On the nights we mix it up, my husband and I can fit alright. We are thin, not tall people.

This is in our furnished rental. But from measuring restaurnat tables, I am also planning on a small table for our breakfast nook/ banquette. I really LIKE a narrow table for its intimacy and scale. I'm thinking 48" x 30 to 36". This table will have at most some maple syrup or a pot of tea in the middle while we are eating. We keep the serving dishes reserved for dining room eating- which is every night.

Seating for 3 is really nice in an L, but then the table might need to be a bit wider...

Kim