This paper, presenting interesting and valuable findings, represents a significant contribution to earthquake engineering. The demonstration of the advantages of the expected ductile response of reinforced concrete dual systems will be particularly appreciated by design practitioners. Instead of offering critical comments, this discussion attempts to illustrate similarities with recently suggested displacement-oriented design strategies, particularly applicable to dual systems. The authors advocate relaxations of perceived restrictions of capacity design and propose more extensive admission of the development of plastic hinges in columns of multistory frames, provided that adequate safeguards exist with respect to potential developments of so-called soft stories. A brief review of the aims of ‘‘capacity design,’’ developed some 30 years ago in New Zealand (Park and Paulay 1975, Paulay and Priestley 1992), may assist in clarifying its relationship to the attractive solutions proposed by the authors. The aim of capacity design was to ensure that the functioning of the energydissipating mechanism, chosen for a ductile structural system by the designer, will be preserved. This necessitates a very clearly defined hierarchy of the strengths of components of kinematically admissible mechanisms. It is emphasized that a viable ductile mechanism must be chosen first. Capacity design enables then special detailing to be provided for potential plastic regions, while standard detailing practice may be used for the remainder of the structure, which, by the assignment of excess strength to it, will be protected against inelastic deformation demands. For good reasons clearly enumerated by the authors for multistory frames, resisting forces generated by earthquake-induced displacements, a strong-column/weak-beam system should be chosen. Once the locations of the potential plastic hinges are chosen, capacity design procedures may then be used to ensure that all other components, intended to remain elastic, will have strength in excess of the maximum expected strengths of the ductile components. Capacity design does not influence the choice of the ductile mechanism. If the designer feels that it is justified to choose a frame system in which