all cash building

All-cash doesn't really affect the quality of the building maintence. The usual reason is that the building has some sort of problem and banks are reluctant to loan money on it.
I saw one co-op in Chelsea where they owned the building but didn't own the land -- they were only renting the land for a 99 year lease (about 30 years left to go on the lease). Needless to say, after the lease expired, the owners of the land would either 1) jack up the rent to ridiculous levels since the co-op owners had no choice but to pay it, or else 2) sell the land to someone else to tear down the building and build a skyscraper.
Obviously, banks are reluctant to issue a 30 year loan on an apartment that won't even *exist* anymore in 30 years. Hence, that was an all-cash deal by necessity, and the board tried to spin it by claiming that was their choice.

Not sure if I'm buying the last post as to the reason. There are many buildings on Park Avenue that require all cash. Most of the apts are 2.5 mil and up and require all cash.

Like Spunky, I was thinking more about the Park Ave model for an all-cash building. There are aberrations like 101 W23 Street, but most all-cash coops are very high-end buildings. It's one part of a building attempting to insure high levels of exclusivity. Another means is a very stringent board that will look for liquid assets several (or many) times the all-cash purchase price. The assumption is that is does a lot to filter out the riff-raff. The impact on market value? Don't look for bargains anytime soon on Park Avenue.

All of the above are correct. If the building is in an exclusive area such as Park Ave. then all cash is used to ensure occupants maintain a certain "financial" profile. Unless a meteor hits Manhattan you won't have to worry too much about resale value.

If an all cash building is located anywhere else (even hot spots like Chelsea) it would raise a red flag for reasons stated by tavistmorph. And that would definitely affect resale.