So, a few options were proposed to replace it:
1. Surface highway
2. Cut and cover tunnel
3. Deep bore tunnel
A surface highway is, by far, the simplest option to implement: you knock down the viaduct, and repave the area underneath it (there's already a road under the viaduct—it just needs expansion).
The viaduct is a death trap, and it will kill some or all of the people on it when it comes down. There is absolutely no question about that in my mind whatsoever. For that reason, I absolutely refuse to set foot on it. There's going to be political hell to pay when it collapses and Seattleites are re-reminded that there was no reason why anyone had to die on a highway everyone knew was unsafe.
Although the Embarcadero Freeway was never rebuilt and that greatly improved the waterfront, a lot of the traffic it carried was rerouted along the Central Freeway/Van Ness (GGB bound traffic) or SOMA surface streets, and no adequate public transit was built either, so "didn't cause problems" is arguable.
There was no perfect solution and that got in the way of the good. Most people had the luxury of avoiding using it. I'd summarize the overarching opinion as "suburbanites who thought it would get fixed cheaper and faster once it finally collapsed."