Does that include the cost of Grand Californian Hotel!
I believe DCA itself was right around half of the $1.2 billion Disneyland Resort Expansion ($600-650M is the budget I recall). The remainder of the money was spent on the Grand Californian, Downtown Disney, and resort infrastructure improvements to support the new configuration.
For another modern-day comparison, DL's Galaxy's Edge and associated infrastructure projects (rerouting Rivers of America, parkwide path widening, etc) came in a little over $1 billion ($1.1-1.2B by most accounts), for what essentially amounts to 2 rides, some stores, and walkways.
I see your point about the contractual obligation regarding WDSP (though I still think Disney could have come up with something better than warehouses in a parking lot), and the wild costs of recent projects is also a massive issue. Still, you lose me with the notion that Eisner managed to distill what people enjoyed from the parks into a leaner, faster, and more agile experience. Particularly in regards to DCA, which became another embarrassment for Disney. In that regard, it's interesting to think that there is now an episode of The Simpsons running on Disney+ with a joke about how bad DCA was perceived to be.
I remember going to DCA before the reboot with a few friends who weren't Disney freaks and one asking me casually as we walked across the park after spending the previous day at DL whether it was also run by Disney as it didn't look as elaborate. She honestly didn't even mean it as a dig and generally enjoyed the place, Still, I think it was telling how the difference in quality was immediately apparent even to the casual visitor.
I don't deny that there were severe quality problems from the late-90's through the end of Eisner's tenure. However, viewed from a high-level concept (which is the level where the CEO really should be involved), the basic elements were all there. He knew that people came to Disney parks for rides, large-scale shows, and unique experiences, delivered to large crowds with above-average hospitality. While it was easy to see where they cut corners in DCA, the attractions and entertainment themselves were generally well-received. The park's much-celebrated 2012 relaunch was primarily cosmetic updates to opening-day facilities, making it a more enjoyable place to spend the time between attractions, while largely keeping the attractions themselves unchanged. Ultimately Eisner's later years were defined by generally bad execution of good ideas.
On the flip side, the quality of the execution under Iger has been mostly outstanding. We have rockwork, backstories, and over-the-top ornamentation all over the place. But it all serves concepts that are largely mediocre and/or poorly located. The Shanghai castle is chock-full of everything a little girl could want, but it's a boxy monstrosity; Shanghai's open spaces provide iconic vistas, but leave the park feeling empty; the AAs in Frozen Ever After are great, but they have no business being in World Showcase; there's no shortage of backstory to Galaxy's Edge, but the overall experience is devoid of charm. These issues have been consistent with Iger-era additions, which tend to have lots of fussy ornamentation in order to disguise deficiencies that are more central to the core of what is actually being added. Additionally, finding ways to fix these issues (like adding length to Navi River Journey) is far more costly and difficult than upgrading the skin of existing, generally-enjoyable facilities.
Eisner also recognized that in order to increase profits, the parks must increase capacity. Yes, it was his Strategic Planning Group that continually reduced the target number of experiences per guest per day, but his additions were frequent and were generally well suited to serve large numbers of guests. The Iger-era focus on character interactions, dining, and "Instagrammable moments" has both reduced the frequency of additions, and dropped the capacity of the few remaining new additions from thousands-of-guests-per-hour to dozens-per-hour. It all seems to reflect that Iger misunderstands the basic reasons people enjoy the parks, focusing more on the Disney-branded exterior than the core experience itself.
Eisner's flaws were plain to see, but also typically easily corrected. Iger's flaws are more easily concealed behind a fancy wrapping, but are more fundamental flaws that are far more difficult and costly to correct in the long-term.
