I'd go larger, 96" fits comfortably with 48" (or so) on each end when extended.

Derek Hurd

Gravitas, Inc.

112 E 33rd St.

Garden City, ID 83714

208.367.1184

Gravitas on Houzz.com

A good rule of thumb is to have at least a minimum of 18" on each side of the table for a chair- A total of 36" on all four sides. The 96" configuration should give you enough seating and still have plenty of room.

I would go with the larger table. With 16' you have plenty of room when it is extended and when it is the smaller size the 72" will balance the space better than the 60".

I'm concerned about the space chairs will take up as well. With chairs on the end, I don't want it to obstruct the traffic flow since there are the open thruways on either side. Thoughts?

Also, the 16' is without any additional furniture at the perimeter such as a console, etc.

Don't put chairs on the end until you need them. 72" is enough room for 3 seats on either side.

In my last home I had two dining areas, both slightly over 15' wide. The breakfast room had a 60" drop leaf table and a chest shortening the 15' side about 20". I always allow a minimum of 30" in depth around the whole table for pulling chairs in and out. This table had chairs on all sides. One of the 16' sides was a major pathway. With the chairs pushed in when the table was not in use there was about a 48" path at both ends, plenty of room to get by. There are many older homes where halls are only 36" wide. In the dining room my table was 72" and had 2 leaves to expand to 108". It was tighter with both leaves in and would not have been good for all the time that way, but on the few occasions when I needed to seat 12 to 14 it was great. I currently have a 12' dining area with 1 end being a major path, the table is off center to give more room on the pathway side. I use the 72" table and can fit 1 leaf into the table and seat ten when I switch to smaller chairs (it is a bit tight) With your space you have plenty of room.