AbstractThis paper addresses some fundamentally contradictory conclusions drawn by Tso and Ying1and the authors2regarding the additional seismic ductility demand in asymmetric building structures and the adequacy of certain code torsional provisions. It also clarifies a number of issues arising from the different approaches employed in the two studies. The Mexico 76 and 87 code torsional provisions are taken as examples. Results show that the structural element at the stiff edge is the more critical and that the Mexico 76 code torsional provisions (among others) are inadequate, substantially underestimating the strength demand of this element. On the other hand, the Mexico 87 code torsional provisions are found to be over‐conservative. Recommendations are also given for improving the form and effectiveness of these code torsional provision