Hi Manda,

Good question. Unfortunately, there is no good answer. California as a whole is very newly settled in geologic time. Records for LA quakes go only back to the mid 1800s, and even then the records are very incomplete and iffy. For example, we know that in 1855 LA experienced a strong quake, exactly how big and where has never been explained.

Because we do not know history, we really have no way of knowing what the future holds. Throw in that the fact that Cal Tech just conceeds that there are so many faults, both thrust and strike slip that criss cross LA that we will never get a good map of where they are, it is kind of frustrating.

What we do know is this:

LA has been relatively quiet in the past 100 years. There was Long Beach in 33 and then San Fernando in 71. If you go to SCEC.org you can pull a list of moderate quakes around S Cal the past 100 years. However, it wasn't until the 80s that we began to see moderate quakes more towards the LA area. From 87 to 94 So Cal as a whole saw a lot of moderate quakes. Then everything went to sleep. Then, since 99 things seem to be awakening a bit.

So Cal seems a little more foreshock happy than N. Cal. I think that is why so many look at the recent quakes with interest.

As for a big quake happening in the Beverly Hills, Century City or Downtown Area, I'm not a scientist, but my gut tells me it may not happen there. I have this feeling the stress is building more in OC, the Inland Empire or the Valley and these micro quakes in basin are just the weaker links snapping before their stronger cousins in those areas go. But maybe that is wishful thinking...I just could not imagine for the life of me a 6+ or even a 5+ quake hitting right under Beverly Hills, this city is in the news enough, we wouldn't need that! :)