I agree that Iger and his “administration” overemphasize IPs in a way that can have a negative impact on the parks. When everything around you is related to an existing movie/“franchise,” it causes the sense of being in “another world” - a major part of what makes Disney parks what they are - to be drastically reduced. We absolutely do have reasons for grave concern about the future of the parks.Iger has proven his faith is strictly in IP's and not in the imagineers to come up with lasting original attractions to add to the parks. Quantity ≠ Quality.
However, that doesn’t mean IP-based projects (and other new projects) aren’t high-quality Imagineering. It would be very hard to argue that Buena Vista Street, Cars Land, or Pandora aren’t high quality - even if you have substantial criticisms of some of the creative/design decisions involved.
The late-phase Eisner regime gave new attractions and even entire parks a very low budgets (even though total expenditures were high, that is deceptive because they were spread extremely thin). It’s easy to look back with rose-tinted glasses and forget what projects like DCA 1.0 were like - breaking entirely from the Disney design traditions of immersion and separation from the outside world, etc. There was no indication under that regime that Disney would ever develop anything on the scale of what Iger started doing as soon as his tenure began. He recognized the importance of immersion, attention to detail/quality, etc., and pushed for Disney to get back to its roots that way. It’s impossible to know exactly what would have happened if Iger had not become CEO, but it’s quite possible that we would have continued to see minuscule-budget parks and attractions until Disney theme parks became indistinguishable from amusement parks. We should be extraordinarily thankful that that didn’t happen.