As much as I miss the ability to intentionally do so, the 5e DMing guidance to roll only when the check is consequential is supposed to take the place of Take 10. Any place where a PC could reliably Take 10 before is an appropriate situation for not rolling in the first place in 5e.
I do think some discussion of that would have been a useful sidebar in the DMG.
It takes the place of both, I'd say, as it's equally true for Take 20 when there are zero consequences for failing.
But the 5E problem is two-fold:
1) This is hidden away in waffle-y text in the DMG. And in the DMG is a big problem. Because it means players don't know about this, can't say to DMs "Wait why are we rolling?". Instead tons of DMs, like a significant minority at least (including some who should know better), don't actually follow this guidance (which should be a hard rule, not guidance). One of the great things with Take 10 and Take 20 is that they were presented to players, and were unavoidable. No-one forgot about them unless alcohol or similar was involved!
2) It's utterly imprecise. Some DMs forget the guidance exists, or ignore it because it's guidance and not presented as a rule, but there are many who know it, and want to follow it, but because it's totally imprecise and waffle-y, they usually enforce it as "if you couldn't fail a roll, we don't roll it". But that's not it - it's the lack of consequences that's the issue. Of the DMs I've played 5E with, I'd say what, nearly 50% have some issues here, making people make a lot of needless, consequence-less rolls and worse, feeling sometimes they have to make up consequences, because, after all, a roll has been failed. Another advantage of Take 10/20 was that a roll wasn't failed. There wasn't a roll, so that subset of DMs who feels every failed roll must result in
punishments didn't have to come up with anything.
So I maintain there was no upside for D&D to removing Take 10/20, and significant downside.