The evident answer to this is 'no' on two empirical grounds: firstly, Civ V is enduringly popular commercially; and secondly both of the first two Civilization games effectively used 1UPT and managed not to destroy the franchise. The stack system as favoured by Civ IV veterans was introduced in Civ III - arguably the weakest entry in the series, and also arguably in part because of stacks.
But of course the OP's issues with the system fundamentally have little or nothing to do with 1UPT and instead are issues with its implementation - something that can more productively be discussed, and particularly with reference to the older 1UPT Civ games' arguably superior approach compared with Civs V and VI.
Moving units has become a tedious PITA, and the "Go To" function has become not only useless, but actually dangerous to use.
There's little to be done about the former, save either reinstating faster movements or allowing road construction as a builder action; the latter is a programming problem
To stop the inherent problem of units clogging the map, individual units have been made too expensive, powerful, and valuable. Meaning that a correctly used small army can conquer the whole world.
Firstly there's no reason for this 'inherent problem' to exist. Civs I and II, while in practical terms 1UPT games, did allow units to move through and occupy the same tiles as one another. The downside was that all units in the stack were destroyed if any one of them lost a battle. This was tactically interesting in its own right and could easily be reinstated - though I'd caution that from recollection this was a way to exploit the AI in the early games, as it would stack units. An alternative easy way to implement in Civ VI would be to prevent combat units stacked with other combat units from attacking at all. Civilian units should be stackable in any event and it was very disappointing that Civ VI didn't make this widely-suggested change. The corps/army system Civ VI added in place of stacking turns out to be more tedious than stacking was, and whatever happened to the idea of support units that could be added to stacks? Does that just refer to medics and field engineers?
Secondly, I don't see that having units be expensive and valuable is an intrinsic problem - they should come with a cost proportionate to their ability, and making them valuable makes protecting them more important (though this does lead to AI issues). Power issues are balance-related rather than 1UPT-related - for a start the ranged unit system should either be removed entirely or confined to later-game bombardment units. People seem to see this as part and parcel of 1UPT, but nothing comparable existed in Civs I or II, nor does it exist in traditional 1UPT wargames.
Because you can't stack units in cities for defence, the cities themselves have been made ridiculously powerful, making garrisoning redundant. A city with walls can easily hold off most AI armies. This makes it even easier to conquer the world, as there is no need to garrison your own or captured cities.
More an issue with AI behaviour and with balance than anything else. The AI doesn't make enough units and is reluctant to attack cities directly past the earliest game stages. That the AI is intrinsically capable of taking cities with the 1UPT system is testified to by the fact that they sometimes do take other AI cities, and in Civ V would much more commonly do so.
The AI in Civ4 wasn't exactly brilliant, but it knew how to build stacks and use them, and as such could be a formidable opponent, especially on higher levels. In contrast, the Civ6 AI is completely unable to execute either attack or defence with 1UPT, meaning that even when it starts a surprise war against you, with massive superiority, you can roll it like a cheap fag.
Sadly true, but Civ V was much more capable even pre-expansions and was actually moderately good by the end of its life cycle - again an AI problem, not a 1UPT problem, and while 1UPT is intrinsically more difficult for the AI than stacks (at least with the implementation of AI-hostile systems like ranged combat) it isn't impossible by any means to do a much better job than Civ VI.
Because 1UTP is apparently incompatible with transports, land units have been given the ability to swim, whilst apparently retaining their strengths. This leads to epic infantry battles in the middle of the ocean, and effectively makes naval units redundant.
Again non-combat stacking would resolve this by allowing units to be transported, or simply changing the way embarked units work. In Civ V embarked units without support were very fragile. I can only assume the change is intended to benefit the AI, as even after other kinks were largely ironed out the Civ V AI could apparently never be trained to avoid embarking close to ranged attackers (once again, an issue introduced by a system not intrinsically related to 1UPT that has no need to exist)
The lack of stacking makes anti-cavalry units pointless (if you'll excuse the pun) so they have to be given their own offensive strength which is nonsense.
I'm not altogether sure what this means - spearmen had offensive strength in Civ IV as well, and indeed every Civ game to date. I presume you aren't holding up Civ IV, a game whose leaders routinely quoted Bette Midler and which had a 'Native American' civ (one concerned with political correctness, no less) as an example of stark realism?
Because you can't stack ranged units, they have been given stupendous range to enable them to fire from the hex behind. So you have ancient archers apparently able to hurl the arrows right over an entire city.
As above, this system is completely unnecessary, and the major cause of AI problems. A 1UPT system works perfectly well with archers having a first-strike ability similar to Civ IV, the ranged attack system but with range 1, or some other way of representing their weapons. I'd be a fan of removing this system altogether for units earlier than, at least, bombards (and possibly than artillery) and later-game naval units (frigates onwards), but keeping city bombardment. This is actually essentially the Panzer General system, and this game is reportedly part of the inspiration for the one used in Civ V.
Because you can't stack them, barrage weapons have been given melee strength to enable them to stand alone. WTF?
Also true in earlier games, but as in those games they don't stand alone very well. In Civ VI for some reason later-game artillery is rather resilient to attack, but in Civ V they folded like paper when enemies reached them - so, again, evidently nothing to do with 1UPT as a system.
I also blame 1UTP for the stupid situation with Builders. Presumably to stop your builders clogging the whole map, they now build things instantaneously, and repair improvements for free. But to limit their usefulness, they expire after 3 builds.
You can blame it on 1UPT all you like, but again this system did not exist in Civ V which had an identical 1UPT system, so you're empirically wrong to do so. Late-game workers being of little use has been a longstanding issue with Civ - all that's changed is that it's a bit harder to park them out of the way, but given that civilian units can be placed in cities and you don't need many, that's not much of an issue (for the player at least - Civ V AIs spammed workers, missionaries and archaeologists).
The limited 'charges' isn't even a bad idea strategically, but the fact that you need to build new workers just to repair pillaged improvements is a pointless nuisance. Keep the unit around on zero charges, a la Beyond Earth exploration rovers, and have a city 'project' to renew a builder's charges (basically, at a production cost slightly lower than that of a new builder, replenish the unit)
As a flow on from above, because Builders are now too valuable to waste building roads, roads just magically appear if you have a trade route (or if you are Rome) AND magically upgrade.
A problem with the builder system, which as above is unrelated to 1UPT. And yes, builders should be able to construct roads.
