>

Apartments want to make as much money as possible.
This already exists...
It's called find a different apartment building with no amenities. >


Well my question is why do we have to pay that extra if we don’t want to use it?

You don't, you rent a similar place in a similar location that doesn't have these amenities and pay a lower rent. 

I think there should be levels of rent giving access to these things so those of us who don’t use them don’t pay for them. Heck they charge more and yet these so called extras aren’t even maintained regularly or even just become unavailable. Yet rent stays the same?

They do this because the amenities become more cost effective when everyone is paying for them. In a large enough building, they charge an extra $100 (as an example) for a pool and weight room but if they only charged the people who wanted them they would cost 2 to 4 times as much. Beyond that, it adds the cost of policing who uses these facilities, which is an expensive headache. >

Because the owner has to pay for and maintain those amenities whether you use them or not. Those amenities are there to attract tenants who wish to part take. You are an outlier in intended clientele. >

That is already a thing.
There are apartment buildings where you can pay extra to have access to in-building amenities.
And there is the fact that you are paying extra just to live in a building that has amenities in the first place.  No one is forcing you to live there if you don’t want to.  If you don’t want to pay for amenities you don’t use, then live in a building that doesn’t have those amenities. >

Definitely can be improved.  Theres a huge complex in the town that I work in that has a pool.  Its common for peoples heat and central air to be messed up.  Maintenance is shoddy.  I'd rather have heat than a pool >

Or they could just charge everyone, make more money from the renter, and save more money by not hiring someone to monitor who is allowed to use the amenities and who isn’t.