Ok, here's the dilemma. We have a beautiful rug that isn't going anywhere. Because of the shape of the room, we have to orient it length wise. And because of the shape/size of the room, the sofa must go on the shorter side. So the measurement for that side is 80 inches. I had decided that we absolutely would not get a sofa longer than 80 inches (or at least a sofa where the width between the legs was 80 inches) because I feel like the legs of the sofa have to be on the rug. Turns out this is a very limiting criteria. If we're willing to go up to even 85 or 86 inches, our sofa options all of a sudden open up. WWYD? Do you agree it'd be weird to have the legs extend beyond the edge of the rug? Or am I making my life harder for no reason?
FWIW, given our space and size of the rug, only the front legs were ever going to be on the rug.
Generally speaking, I would want the legs on the rug. However, there are always exceptions, and your situation may be that exception. What's your budget?
Do you have a scaled layout drawing? I always do that when I'm trying to figure out rug sizes. Then I use painters tape on the floor for a while to get an idea of size as well. I think it might look undersized to do that, but I have a hard time picturing it in my head without some sort of drawing.
If you have room to go that much larger on the sofa, do you actually have room to orient the rug the other way and maybe have a second rug for a different conversation area? How much space will you have around the rug with the layout as currently planned (i.e. what are the dimensions of the room and what are the dimensions of the rug)?
I have no idea how to make a scaled drawing?
I've tried to orient the rug the other way and it just doesn't work. This is really the only option. It'd be ideal if the rug were wider, but it's not. I mean, the rug barely fits, but it looks ridiculous. So we're stuck.
I had my heart set on a chesterfield sofa for awhile. But budget and size got in the way. Then I had my heart set on the Carlisle (English roll arm) from PB, but DH found it extremely uncomfortable. I did fine a similar sofa at Home Decorators that would fit perfectly, but I feel really uneasy about ordering a couch without sitting in it first. Our old couch was MCM, and I do like that style still, but I'm leaning away from it. Those couches do tend to be more petite though, so we may end up with that.
I think it probably would look weird if the couch was wider than the rug, depending on what other furniture you have on the longer sides.
There prob won't be any furniture on the long side. One end is the fireplace and the other end needs to be open because it connects the foyer to the living room to the dining room. I've tried the couch there and it's too tight. Maaaaybe a bench ottoman? Maybe.
My solution to this problem is to orient the rug at an angle to the walls in the direction that will provide the length needed to accommodate the sofa. If this still isn't adequate, placing a jute (or similar) rug under the decorative rug at a slightly different angle will allow the feet of the sofa to rest on the underlying jute rug if not on the decorative rug.
I had to buy a sofa that was less than 70" long for the same reason, and also because my living room is not that huge. Once you know what to look for, they are not that hard to find. I agree with PP who said to look for an "apartment sofa". You can also look at some love seats that are big. I bought mine from Ethan Allen, but also found good options at West Elm and Crate and Barrel.