Dining room table size
From: David Mandel (dlmandelrcip.com)
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 01:20:55 -0600 (MDT)
OK, all you other veteran communities, we're finally maybe really
getting serious about getting some nicer dining room tables than the
eclectic mix of donated ones and ugly folding models we've used for six
(!) years. I recall a discussion years ago about optimum size, with some
strongly expressed warnings against getting them too wide, for two
reasons: Quieter conversations across the table and the ability to fit
more people in the room. Others of us say that if they're too narrow,
there's not enough room for serving plates when we want to get away even
in part from pure buffet. Also there's the debate over folding (easier
to get out of the way when we want to dance) vs. non-folding (better
aesthetics).
    Alas, however, I looked in the archives and couldn't find the thread
I recall.
    I know this has to do in part with size and shape of dining room;
we'll consider that. But anyone who can do us this favor, please tell me
whether you think your tables are too big, too small or just right.
Before you send the message, however, take a tape measure with you next
time you're in the dining room, and get the dimensions. Then add a
sentence about the folding vs. non factor. What do you think?
    Thanks so much. Probably direct messages to me would save others a
lot of mail that wouldn't interest most. I'll be happy to compile a
summary and send it out in a couple of weeks.

David Mandel, Southside Park, Sacramento



Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.