Well, I more specifically referred to South East Asia and South America. And also, there was a time when the US actually led the world in creating new, innovative, compelling, paradigm shifting architecture. I can say from experience, that the vast majority of US clients are unwilling to pay the premium for truly ground-breaking design.
I mean, there are examples at WDW that illustrate the stark difference when a client is willing to pay a premium for top-notch architecture. Disney at one time, was willing to go the extra mile to have architecture that was either innovative (Swolphin), helped enhance the storytelling (Wilderness Lodge), and in the best cases, both (Contemporary Hotel). There are also examples of Disney doing the opposite and spending as little as possible on design and construction as they focused on ROI and RevPAR (POP and AOA).
Many US clients that are able and willing to build medium to large scale projects are too risk averse to take the chance that a design is too "out there" for their tenants or customers or guests sensibilities. Hence, the rise of the "boutique" hotels, that are usually small enough to build or renovate at a lower cost, and if the concept doesn't "take" they haven't outlayed a large amount of capital. One could argue Disney themselves are attempting this approach with the Star Wars Hotel.
More on topic, this new wing for the Swolphin also sounds like it could be a similar "boutique" concept. So they aren't going to be willing to spend a premium for design and construction, when they could spend that capital on soft goods and finishes. Then, if the concept fails, it doesn't cost the company much to strip out finishes and renovate.
