Sydney apartment: do high strata costs outweigh building equity?

[loft.balanced]

I’m comparing my current rent with buying a similar Sydney apartment for about A$1,307,000. Mortgage payments, tax, maintenance and strata levies would together be well above the rent, although part of the mortgage would build equity.

The difficult part is that I may move in five to seven years. That makes flexibility and buying/selling costs important, while future building fees are uncertain. How would you assess this without assuming strong price growth? If you chose either way at roughly this price, what tipped the decision?

 

[FirstBrick]

With a possible move in five to seven years and a large gap between rent and ownership costs, I would lean toward renting unless stability has substantial personal value. Compare rent with interest, taxes, levies, maintenance and transaction costs—not the full mortgage payment, because principal becomes equity. Then test flat and falling resale prices rather than relying on appreciation.

 

[FirstBrick]

One missing fact is the deposit. A larger deposit changes both the mortgage cost and what your cash could earn elsewhere. I’d also separate ordinary levies from any special levies. Can you see the building’s past levy increases, reserve position, planned major works and insurance history? Those matter more than the current headline fee alone.

 

[bakesAndKite]

High strata levies can be a warning sign, but unusually low ones are not automatically safer. A building with lifts, extensive common areas or ageing equipment may either fund that upkeep steadily or defer it until owners face a larger bill.

I’d compare the current charges with the services provided, the reserve balance and the work already anticipated. That should show whether owners are paying for active maintenance and sensible preparation, or covering costs without building much resilience. The distinction matters more than whether the levy looks high in isolation.

 

[countTheWorkshop]

The five-to-seven-year horizon also raises resale liquidity. Look at how interchangeable the apartment is with other units in the same building and nearby developments. If several similar apartments are commonly available, selling on your preferred timetable may require price flexibility.

Keeping it as a rental after moving is another possibility, but only if likely tenant demand supports the levies, vacancy periods and management workload. Don’t treat that as an automatic escape route.

 

[RealMap]

Energy use could shift the comparison too. Ask for actual information relevant to the unit and shared areas rather than assuming a newer-looking building is cheaper to run. Central systems and extensive common areas may add costs you cannot control.

I’d build three cases: move after five years, move after seven, and stay longer. Include one-off buying and selling costs, modest levy increases, one larger building expense, and no price growth.

 

[jade_deals]

Before deciding, reduce this to two separate questions: can you comfortably carry the apartment if levies or insurance-related costs rise, and would you still want it if its value were unchanged when you move? If either answer is no, renting preserves useful flexibility.

For practical next steps, compare several genuinely similar buildings, examine their shared-building finances and maintenance needs, and have the purchase and tax assumptions confirmed for your circumstances in New South Wales. A precise spreadsheet with uncertain inputs is still uncertain, so make the downside case visible.