M113 can be fitted with ATGMs, automatic grenade launchers, recoilless guns, extra armor... Hell, anything and a kitchen sink.
I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea to have a wheeled IFV. It will almost certainly have better gas mileage than a tracked vehicle, and it absodamnedlutely will have better maintenance costs. Tracks are expensive to replace, a nightmare to maintain, and they don't last that long. Plus, for urban operations, a wheeled vehicle won't be destroying the road infrastructure like a tracked vehicle will. Actually, that's another point in favor of a wheeled vehicle - using a Bradley in urban work, you'll kill the roadwheels before you will the tracks, and that's even more miserable to fix than a broken track.
Also, with a 6- or 8-wheeled IFV / APC, if you get damage to one or two wheels - hell, up to 4 wheels conceivably - you can still limp home. If your Bradley loses a track, you're a sitting duck until you can get a recovery vehicle on-site and some more troops to cover you while the repair / recovery operation happens.
Now, as to the Stryker specifically ... there's some reports that tire life is NOT as good as it should be - not as good, specifically, as the USMC LAV-25, based on an earlier version of the same vehicle - due to weight problems. Also, the Canadian version of the same vehicle (LAVIII) has been having rollover issues, but this has been attributed to the turret system on the LAV-III, which is not present on the Stryker.
There's plenty of other things to consider as far as specific vehicle design goes, but in general it's not a bad idea to have a wheeled IFV for the environment that we're seeing it used in right now. It's just not, and never can be, a replacement for the big boys, that's all.
My big problem with the Stryker, actually, is that goddamned 'y' in the name. I mean, seriously, are we stuck in the 80's here or something?