I have both as well.
However, I have different impressions. Both lenses have their own strengths and weaknesses and I have come to the opinion that one can't truly replace the other.
The 24-70 has better:
Performance at 24mm, particularly in corners
Distortion control at 24mm
T-stop advantage (slight increase in exposure despite both being f4)
The 24-105 has better:
Performance in the 50mm range (significantly better, too)
Performance at/near MFD
At 70mm both seem to be about the same TBH.
Now, you may mention that I didn't bring up the close focusing ability of the 24-70 as an advantage over the 24-105. Why? I find it to be incredibly soft, plus one has to get so close that the lens blocks light. Not that useful in my opinion, but nonetheless it may find some use when I can't be bothered pulling the 100 macro out.
Have you sent your lens to Canon and had it calibrated? If not, I really recommend you try it.
My 24-70 f/4 was very soft at 50mm when I bought it, and not great at 35. 70 was better but 24 was certainly best. Sent it back to canon for calibration and it's a much better lens now. It's consistently good throughout the zoom range, from f/4.
As for macro mode, i agree the short working distance isn't helpful (although I still use it for occasional macro shots) but I don't feel like my copy is soft.