This is rather a simplification, but the basic answer is channel capacity. The whole HF band is the width of a single GHz channel, and the VHF band is the width of the 2.4 GHz band. This means bandwidth at the HF/VHF bands is in very short supply.
Granted, there are some available bands, but they are so narrow as to only suit very low bandwidth. They tend to be used for short range (low power) applications, where cost is also a critical factor (or used to be).
The increased range is not actually an advantage, it makes for reduced re-use. If you consider the capacity of a channel across a city this becomes a bit easier to visualise. Range of a WiFi signal means that from one building to the next, it's possible to re-use most of the channels without getting an unusable interference scenario. If your WiFi had a 5km range (in the night when everyone else had turned their router off), everything would grind to a halt in the day.
Achieving optimum band capacity requires several channels (so a wide band), and a range which is no more than necessary (so neighbouring nodes can re-use channels more efficiently).
Although higher frequency signals tend to require more infrastructure, the cost of infrastructure is dropping, and the cost of mass produced generic RF is also now cheaper at high frequencies where entire circuits can be integrated. Contrast this to 20 years ago, when GHz design was still very niche - now it comes ready to use, off the shelf.