To be fair, the writer doesn't lay everything at The Hub's feet but rather puts it in the context of a wider narrative, with live action on Cartoon Network being another aspect of it for instance.
What bothers me about the meta argument is that Amid seems to overlook creator-driven cartoons that do exist like the ones Tobias listed, hand-waving this reality away with the the idea that "idealists" and creators venturing to do original things are only going to decline from this point onward. But the troubling idea as presented there is just an idea, assertion masquerading as fact. To believe this I'm asked to embrace not evidence per se (which is impossible to provide), but a supposedly clear vision of where things are obviously going. Supposedly The Hub, the new kid on the block, heralds a fad that will wash over all the cable networks like an unstoppable tsunami. That's quite an ambitious prediction.
I also reject the implication that reviving an old property means that by default, little to no creativity can exist. What about Batman Beyond's toyetic origins and what the creators pulled off within that mandate? What about Young Justice taking a very familiar DC Universe and reimagining it in its very early days? Yes, it takes more effort to come up with something brand new, but I think it's very unfair to assume that working on an old property must mean that the staff is just going to phone it in.
I would suggest that it's not the medium, but the quality of perception and expression, that determines the significance of art. But what would a cartoonist know? -Bill Watterson