We thank Professor Paulay for the attention he paid to our work. Our motivation to perform the work that gave rise to the paper was to show the advantages of dual systems as earthquake-resistant building structures. Among other advantages, we tried to show that in ductile frames the hinges can develop in the beams, in the columns, or both, due to the fact that the walls prevent the development of the soft story mechanism. We believe this conclusion helps the compatibility of architectural requirements with the ductile design of reinforced concrete frames, rendering dual systems more attractive for earthquake resistant design. Since Professor Paulay shares our views on the advantages of dual systems, we are left essentially with the possibility of commenting on his findings kindly added to the discussion. In our view, those comments include simple and revolutionary ideas that offer excellent opportunities to design safer structures at reduced costs. The best example is expressed in Point 3: ‘‘yield deformations of components are largely independent of their nominal strength,’’ leading to much greater choice in the assignment of strength between walls and frames. We read the relevant reference (Paulay 2002) and we fully agree with this view. We also agree with the concepts expressed in Points 1, 2, and 5. We can only add a few comments: • Point 3—It may be reasonable to establish certain limits to the distribution of strength between walls and frames. These should be related to the need to avoid brittle behavior of elements of the structure, particularly the walls. This could eventually be induced by assigning to the frames a fraction of the inertia forces too small. If the frames would possess some excess strength in what regards the design for other load combinations, the shear ratio (l = M/VL) at the base of the wall could be overestimated. This would derive from the fact that the frames would tend to lower down the resultant of the inertia forces applied on the wall during the response to an earthquake. This would lead to the underestimation of the design forces at the base of the wall associated with the development of the flexural capacity. This point is implicitly addressed in the conclusions of the above-mentioned reference where the redistribution of a ‘‘fraction of the required seismic strength’’ is referred to. • Point 5—Lower periods, as would result from stiffness estimates based on elastic gross or cracked concrete sections, would generally lead to the overestimation of spectral accelerations and inertia forces. Even though less realistic, these would