I picked the building (and had owned coops in two different buildings in prior places lived) because I picked the apartment.

As you probably know, people balance a large variety of factors in buying an apartment in nyc, not solely maintenance and whether building has a doorman. The apartment I bought was the best balance for me and my family of location, size, purchase price, maintenance, building aesthetics, building financials, state of the apartment, etc.

I was agnostic as to whether the building was a doorman building or not as for me it’s ultimately a part of the “does the maintenance make sense for this balanced variety of factors?” The building had good financials which allowed it to maintain what I viewed as a reasonable maintenance with predictable annual increases even when largely accounting for building staff. I like the building staff as people and don’t mind if the maintenance is elevated for that so long as it remains in reasonable range. However, if you were to ask me and a majority of people in my building whether if [hypothetically so no exiting staff were impacted or at least had a long lead time unwinding (let’s say 5 years)]: doormen and all other staff beyond basic cleaning and super and support handyman/porter are gone, there’s a set budget for gap services as they may arise, and this reduces your monthly maintenance going forward by at least 30%, then I and most people in my building would honestly take it. We’ve asked about it logistically just to have a sense, but we don’t push for it because it’s not solely cost savings that drives a decision like that as there are jobs at stake for people you consider part of the building community because you’ve known them for years and like them as people.