While the first one looks prettier, I'd feel like I'd sink down in the cushions too much. It also looks like if you did sink down, you would be a little low. That wouldn't be functional for me. The sofa does look cozy for lounging and watching a movie...but that's about it.

The second one, the table looks too small. Increase the table size by 6-10" and it'd be fine. Looks crowded.

Something feels wrong with both of them. Can't quite put my finger on it.

B seems altogether wrong. I don't like the wall décor, the table seems too narrow, I don't feel the light is complementary, and the bench seating looks uncomfortably limited.

I picked A, although the table seems poorly coordinated with the cushy seating. The seating seems too long for the table. Perhaps a round table with a nice upholstered chair or two included on the outer sides? I don't like the wall décor and the light seems to be hung too high. Although I like the candles, they seem like they may get tipped over as people enter the cushy seating. It needs to be moved further out.

And there you have my very biased review.

They're essentially the same thing.

Neither.

Neither one. If I had to choose one, it would be B because there are normal chairs at the table, but I wouldn't want bench seating.

I think a pub height (counter height) table and stools would be better in this space.

I think I'd eat at the island.

#1 could work, I guess, if you don't mind being crowded. But #2 - how is someone even supposed to sit down? You have a sofa, table and candleholders all crammed onto too-small a rug. There's no way to pull the table out that everyone on the sofa could reach the table comfortably. Besides which , a loose pillow white sofa is probably one of the most impractical choices for a dining space.

I've never been a fan of bench seating if you have to crawl over someone to get out. This is all so monotone, too. I agree with ecpt about the white and the other one is still an issue with those benches. I know people like this but in my new kitchen I went with a round pedestal (no legs to trip over) table with four chairs. I had a designer help me and she agreed.

Neither works, the space is too small for both options.

Neither strikes my fancy cimpletely but since I had to choose I picked A. B seemed too busy and uncomfortable and crammed into the corner. And the wall treatment out of place. However, A looks a bit out of proportion as well, but I liked the walls/color scheme better. I would change out the light fixture, though.

Get rid of the rug in both; too weird for a kitchen.

neither, they both need help. ugh!

I agree with others who find both designs cramped and fussy, although pretty to the eye. Neither of these is functional or practical. B is especially problematic. Who would put light-colored cushions anywhere near food? I can imagine them covered in spaghetti sauce or spilled red wine. Function first, then design for the function the space has to fulfill. A simple table with leaves to extend its length, and a few chairs on either side, would be more open and allow flexibility, especially if supplemented with attractive folding chairs when needed. Ditch the carpet. That candle stand in A is just waiting to be knocked over. Art work in both is meaningless and bland. If that area is dark, a mirror is a good idea but one could also give the space some color with art works that actually mean something to the people who live there and would engage visitors as conversation starters.

Year old posting

The first one...and I'd use the bar...particularly with children. Can you imagine eggs, jelly, or whatever on the fabric seatings? Yeah, no.

Neither - I would have to have a window nearby so I could enjoy the view. I hate corners with no natural light.

I agree with a lot of what others said. Having grown up with a banquette style eat-in kitchen, the table absolutely has to be a large pedestal, windows are a necessity, there should always be storage under the benches, and everything needs to be uncluttered but comfortable.

Why would anyone want to start their day with those non-colors?!

Oh dear. Both of them look unattractive and uncomfortable to my eyes.

That mirror in A looks dangerous! I would surely hit my head and the little ones would probably knock it right off the wall. I voted for B but think both could have better-thought-out wall decor.

I get that this is a poll to demonstrate possible solutions to a badly planned space in a kitchen, but should that space instead contain a nice pantry wall? Neither solution here appeals to me. Turning that inside corner with either of those banquettes is the big "shouldn't do" IMO. If there absolutely must be table and chairs there, a straight, streamlined banquette spanning the long wall only -with or without a back- and a longer narrow table with 2-3 chairs opposite -nothing at the ends!!!- would look more "meant to be". As it is, B looks like a river rushed through the kitchen and deposited a furniture log jam, and in A the banquette looks like pieces gone AWOL from the living room sectional.

I'd like to know here to purchase the tall back chairs and table from picture B. I have a bench picked out and want to go with a similar design for my kitchen. I have a tiny kitchen, so this would be a real space-saver for me.

Looks like eating would be a little easier with option B.

Furniture is to larger for room