That’s probably true, and unfortunate, too. No matter how much you show some people that they’d be better off (a better track plan, wider curves, etc.) with something other than that shape and size, they insist on using it.
I would suggest that maybe the language is a bit strong–“better off” in what way? Priorities are different for everybody. Somebody who is looking at model trains more as something to play with–an informal hobby–will have different priorities than someone who is wanting to replicate the operations of a real railroad in miniature–and someone who wished to do that, even, may have different priorities–for instance, most British modelers look at replicating the actions in one particular station–including timetable operation (what trains ran on a particular day), and replicating every detail of the station, whereas some operators wish to replicate the entire operation of a branch, and others seek to scale a whole railroad, with copious amounts of selective compression. Every aspect of model railroading involves compromises, as we are dealing in miniature, and with various amounts of real estate. For myself, I would rather see someone get started on a 4x8, and catch the fever in a big way. This is better than being discouraged simply because of his choice of 4x8 for his first layout. Getting up and running is the first priority, I would think, especially if some one is, um… carpentally-challenged. 
Americans start with a 4x8. That’s the way it is. For myself, I would recommend simpler plans that downplay the idea of a roundy-rounder. For instance, scenic only one side, with the back side for staging. You would have two benefits from this. 1. Curves are less obvious and less of an issue, and 2. It starts the thinking along the lines of, "why not just run it around the w
It’s like a mantra kind of thing. If I just want to have the train going around chasing its tail that will be the form I’ll choose. Eeeergh[sigh]
I like shelf based plans because I can do more with that type of design rather than roundie rounds.
Again, “table” and shelf" are not the only two types of layout designs.
By limiting discusion to these two terms, people end up missing out on a lot of possibilities.
Just about no one prefers smaller-radius curves, for starters.The 4x8 always limits curves to 22" or less (and most people will use 18" because they want the track away from the edge of the table).
By “better off,” I mean a more serviceable shape for the layout than a 4x8 rectangle.
And “around the walls” is not the only alternative to the 4x8 table, and such thinking is what limits us in designing benchwork.
Americans do not necessarily need to start with a 4x8 sheet of plywood. There is no rule that states it is a requirement, and thinking a little more creatively usually results in a shape more suited to building a model railroad.
And that is quite true-I was thinking of one way to do it. As for me and my space I’ve opted for an around the corner type for now. I’m helping a couple with a disabled child build one that is almost–if one could picture it–a dragonfly shape with swept back wings. It is a combination of shelf,peninsula with attached blob, and tables at ends of wings for storage tracks at this point. The top of the layout joins the two ends in a wye which then draws the single main down one side of the peninsula, around the ‘blob’, and back near the top where it terminates. Mind, all plans are, or can be, provisional, depending on what one sees developing over time----
Thank you for the advice. I will be looking for an old ping-pong table which is 5x9 feet. You are right that it will allow me to spread things out more for not only the asethetics, but for operation as well. But, give yourself a high five and and pat on the back. You succeeded in meeting the customer’s request despite the difficulties.[tup]