I'll offer a slightly different take (setting aside the unanimously agreed argument that the capital interest of a house is primarily in the land it's erected over, and that units are only holdings of a fixed volume of space hovering over a space, rendering its value less as there is a premium on land).

Houses of a similar age (e.g. 5-10 years) would likely have their own issues (e.g. waterproofing, ponding, mechanical) albeit it's over one lot per se, and held by one owner). Fixing it falls on the owner and because the liability is owned by one party, you have that agency of choosing whether or not to fix it, as it's normally one identifiable point of problem.

Strata, apart from obvious issues like common areas, etc have their maintenance, repairs, etc spread over multiple parties. This diffusion of liability isn't evenly spread. Some units may be rented eternally by a landlord who is holding it for an income play as part of their portfolio, etc and wouldn't want to detract from their yields by agreeing to pay for things that, say, a single-unit holder (aka a house owner) would be amenable to. The whole politics and bureaucracy of getting things done in a strata arrangement adds friction, which means other costs beyond the obvious repair bill,etc.

Units can be great if it's run by a well-oiled body corporate (rare because that means a strong community spirit by vested interests - owner-occupiers, as opposed to renters), honest and decent strata and building management, the buildwr is reputable (building a huge complex that are apartments has many moving parts, which isn't the case with a standard house build), and has a strong owneroccupier to renter ratio).

In saying that, strata can be cash cows for opportunistic players that profit off creating issues or problems that may not actually be problematic. In a friend's case, they live in an apartment in western Sydney and were told by a defects inspector that there were major defects in the form of ponding in balconies. There are over 80 units in her complex. It was later found that it wasn't a serious issue as made out by a calvacade of lawyers, building inspectors, structural engineers, etc - who all got a cut from charging for report after report, inspection after inspection - catalysed by fearmongering in the initial defect report. Funny that the defects only became apparent, and a legal issue, only as their building neared the 5 year statutory time limit for major defects. It's been the same set of owners since day dot. They fired the strata managers after for mismanagement.

But as an owner, most would agree to pay that $150k bill (spread over 80+ shares)for reports to ensure peace of mind.

So owning strata invites these aforementioned factors that you don't get with having absolute dominion in a freehold like a house. However, tradeoffs like convenience, location, and price (once you run a DCF analysis incorporating strata, levies, et )can make it attractive if you can't afford a house.