Picking one of those cities — or one that didn’t advance to Amazon’s final round, like Detroit, St. Louis or Cleveland — would have been transformative. And not just for those cities, but as an affirmation that there are great places to live in America that don’t offer ocean views and $3,000-a-square-foot condos.

“There are smaller cities in this country that are incredible places to live,” Mr. Stringer said. “They’re great places to raise families, they’re affordable, and they’re fun.”

In its initial request for proposals, Amazon emphasized many of those qualities, ranking costs second on its list of priorities. That led pundits to eliminate New York, San Francisco, Boston and Washington, all of them among the most expensive places to live or do business, according to KPMG’s annual Competitive Alternatives survey.

Among Amazon’s finalists, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and Chicago had some of the lowest costs.

Of course, the potentially multibillion-dollar tax incentives that New York and Northern Virginia are lavishing on Amazon help compensate for the locations’ high costs. But presumably other cities dangled big tax breaks, too.

“Labor force” ranked third on Amazon’s list of criteria, but in the end, it seemed to be determinative. It was the first thing that Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s chief executive, mentioned when he announced the winners: “These two locations will allow us to attract world-class talent that will help us to continue inventing for customers for years to come.”

That, in part, reflects the same self-reinforcing tendencies that are driving creative, well-educated workers to the two coasts, with just a handful of high-tech, hipster enclaves (like Austin, Tex., and Denver, two Amazon finalists) in between.