Why New Hampshire Has No Top-Tier East Coast Ski Resorts

For the average ski vacationer, common wisdom would imply that the further north you get, the better the skiing. Yet at the same latitude at which Northeast skiers can find the iconic resorts of Vermont, another state often gets overlooked: New Hampshire. On paper, New Hampshire is abound with some of the tallest and most aesthetic ski resorts in the Northeast region. But when it comes to booking a major Northeast ski trip, many folks completely overlook the state, and instead go to neighboring Vermont or Maine instead.

So why do so few people seriously consider New Hampshire as a regional ski destination? And have we all just been getting it wrong this whole time? In this article, we’ll go through the strengths and weaknesses of skiing in what’s perhaps the most interesting case study of any Northeast ski state. Let’s jump in.

New Hampshire is home to many competitive looking ski areas, so why do many vacationers skip it for the ski areas of Vermont or Maine?

New Hampshire’s Strengths

Population

First off, let’s start with what should, on paper, make New Hampshire such an appealing state for winter sports. First off, New Hampshire has a number of demographic advantages that should in theory give it a leg up on other nearby states for skiing and riding. Many of New Hampshire’s ski resorts sit within easy day-trip distance of the Boston metro area, making areas in southern New Hampshire such as Mount Sunapee and Gunstock particularly appealing in terms of convenience alone. In addition, New Hampshire boasts a local population more than twice the size of Vermont to the west, and concentrated into just under four times less area than Maine to the east.

Mountains

But it’s not just the population that New Hampshire has going for it—the state’s natural geography makes for some of the most incredible mountains in New England. New Hampshire is actually home to the tallest and most geographically prominent mountain in the Northeast, Mount Washington, which tops out at 6,288 feet. At least twenty other mountains in the state are taller than the tallest mountain in Vermont, Mount Mansfield, and at least four are taller than the tallest mountain in Maine, Mount Katahdin.

Vertical Drop

Thanks in part to this favorable geography, the state features a number of ski areas that are competitive—if not top of their category—in vertical drop. Wildcat, Loon, and Cannon all stand at above 2,000 feet of skiable vertical, all of which are very respectable totals for the East Coast. Wildcat and Cannon even see their summits sitting at over 4,000 feet of elevation, making them some of the highest lift-served peaks in the region and offering spectacular views from the top. The rugged nature of New Hampshire’s alpine terrain makes for some seriously technical terrain, and many resorts, especially in the north-central part of the state, hold their own against the best in New England for on-slope challenges. And finally, New Hampshire’s ski resorts also typically see temperatures that are just as cold as Vermont’s and colder than the resorts in southern New York, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, leading to more reliable snowmaking operations and better natural snow preservation than other parts of the region.

New Hampshire’s ski resorts do not see the same quantity of snow as those in its westerly neighbor, Vermont.

The Issue of Snow

But in order to have a truly competitive ski resort, you need natural snow, and that’s where New Hampshire starts to fall short. Almost all resorts in New Hampshire, including its highest and most northern peaks, fall well short of even 200 inches of snowfall in an average year. This puts the best of New Hampshire in line with typical resorts in southern Vermont, even though they are further north. Even the snowiest resorts in north-central New Hampshire, such as Wildcat, Cannon, and Bretton Woods, average 25% less natural snow than Northern Vermont peaks such as Stowe and Smugglers Notch—and are seriously outclassed by Jay Peak, Vermont’s snowiest mountain, which often sees accumulation totals close to double these mountains.

Snow totals at New Hampshire ski areas pale in comparison to many destinations in Vermont.

The Issue of Size

But while New Hampshire’s ski resorts may not offer the highest snow totals, they stand out even less when it comes to the size of their skiable footprints. While several New Hampshire ski resorts offer commendable vertical drops, even the biggest resorts in New Hampshire only max out at around 400 or so acres. As a result, even the state’s most competitive offerings are smaller than several well-traveled Vermont ski areas, such as Stowe, Sugarbush, Okemo, and Stratton. New Hampshire’s resorts are plainly dwarfed by Killington, which is three times larger than the biggest New Hampshire ski area (Bretton Woods, which is 464 acres). And while New Hampshire’s best resorts do see pretty comparable snow totals to the best mountains in its easterly neighbor, Maine, Pine Tree State resorts such as Sugarloaf and Sunday River attract more overnighters thanks to their sheer size, boasting footprints that are the second and third largest in the Northeast, respectively.

And on the note of terrain size, the actual skiable footprint of New Hampshire’s biggest resorts often falls short of destinations in both Vermont and Maine—even in cases when the boundary to boundary acreage seems similar—for one key reason: the tree coverage. At several competitive ski areas in Maine, Vermont, and Quebec, a significant portion of the resort footprint is skiable as unmarked glades, with naturally-spaced trees enabling many unofficial zones to remain skiable throughout a core season. While New Hampshire has its fair share of thinned-out glade runs, these zones often see unreliable openings due to low snow coverage—and outside of the cut and maintained glades, wooded zones can be far too dense to be skiable in a typical season. The trees in southern New Hampshire’s ski resorts are a bit more widely spaced than those in the north-central part of the state, but the resorts in the state’s lower third just do not see the natural snow to practically offer woods terrain. This means that for most advanced and expert visitors, you simply won’t be finding the hidden powder stashes for days after a storm in New Hampshire that can be found if you know what you’re doing elsewhere in the region.

Dense woods, such as these at Attitash, prevent many off-trail runs from being skiable.

Unfortunately, another New Hampshire downside is that none of its ski resorts take full advantage of the state’s tallest and most prominent mountains. With its highest ski areas topping out just above 4,000 feet, the resorts do not even come close to reaching the peaks that New Hampshire has to offer. In fact, even though its tallest peak is nearly 2,000 feet lower than New Hampshire’s, Vermont’s tallest ski resort, Killington, actually summits over 150 feet higher than New Hampshire’s tallest resorts, Cannon and Wildcat. Elevation and vertical descent are still relative strengths for New Hampshire’s best mountains, but it’s clear that resort developers have not taken as much advantage of the state’s natural mountain ranges as they theoretically could.

Skiing off Mount Washington, the state’s tallest mountain, is limited to backcountry skiers only.

So Why Not Expand?

So if New Hampshire’s ski resorts can’t compete in size, both officially and unofficially, why not simply expand—especially given the state’s favorable on-paper topography? Unfortunately, expansion in the Northeast is often not so simple, and an overwhelming barrage of factors make expansion of most New Hampshire ski resorts practically impossible. 

The primary factor preventing many New Hampshire ski areas from expanding is that many are located in state park or forest land, making permits difficult to get. Several ski areas exist near or within delicate alpine ecosystems, making for potential environmental consequences in the event an expansion is approved (just as has recently been the case in the Pacific Northwest states of Washington and Oregon). In addition, due to southern New Hampshire's much denser base of population, resorts that aren’t inhibited by these forest land restrictions have found themselves surrounded by private development, making it very economically difficult to expand.

But even ignoring environmental concerns, many of the tempting peaks in New Hampshire have simply not been economically feasible to develop. The terrain in northern New Hampshire might look really good for ski resorts on paper, but the northern third of the state is just too remote to practically allow for travel. In addition to the prolonged driving distance and lack of infrastructure, a similarly long commute would bring you to snowier resorts in northern Vermont, likely with less sketchy roads.

But New Hampshire’s tallest and most prominent mountains aren’t actually in the incredibly rural tip of the state. Rather, they exist in the Presidential and Franconia Ranges in the north-central part of the state, which actually offers fairly decent roads and infrastructure. In fact, every New Hampshire mountain that tops out above 5,000 feet exists within one of these two ranges, and alpine enthusiasts who like to earn their turns have very much caught wind of this, with these ranges becoming incredibly popular for backcountry skiing and riding.

So why haven’t some of New Hampshire's most famous skiable backcountry locations—especially Tuckerman Ravine on the massive Mount Washington—been developed into ski resorts? You’ve seen pictures of these mountains, which offer some of the only above-treeline slopes in New England and make for absolutely stunning alpine environments. Unfortunately, the topography that makes these mountains so unique also makes them plainly inhospitable to ski resort development. 

The Presidential Range sees uniquely challenging weather conditions not just for the Northeast, but for all of North America. Mount Washington regularly sees record wind speeds that would make lift service impossible on many days, even holding the title for the highest surface wind speed ever recorded in the Northern Hemisphere at 231 mph. In addition, Tuckerman Ravine, as well as many other backcountry zones on and around Mount Washington, are simply too steep and demanding for practical resort development, with lackluster beginner and intermediate slopes. And despite much stronger snow totals on these peaks than New Hampshire’s officially developed resorts, the highly-exposed terrain zones result in wind-scoured slopes and extremely hard-packed conditions. In fact, these are key reasons why many backcountry enthusiasts do not even touch Tuck’s during the core winter season, and wait until late March and April to scale the face.

Mount Washington, the tallest peak in New Hampshire, hosts some of the wildest weather in the world.

So, has anyone actually tried to build a ski resort on one of the 5,000-footers or in the relatively undeveloped northern White Mountains? The answer varies. While no documented developments have taken place on the 5,000-footers of the Presidential and Franconia Ranges, there has indeed been activity in the northern White Mountains. For years, plans have been in place for a massive ski area development known as The Balsams in northern Coos County. This development, if completed, expects to provide 2,200 acres of skiable terrain, making it the largest resort by skiable acreage on the East Coast. The location of this proposed resort also sits in a region which gets snow totals closer to that of northern Vermont, allowing The Balsams to compete with the likes of Stowe and Jay for those chasing the best conditions. 

This all being said, for this massive plan to come to fruition, The Balsams would need to overcome a few major challenges, most of which stem from its isolation. The resort is almost 4 hours from the Boston metro area, putting it in direct competition with, if not a step below, the resorts of Northern Vermont for those commuting from that area. In addition, housing all the staff needed to run the resort will create a major infrastructure challenge for the small nearby town of Colebrook. That said, if the investment money is there to develop the needed infrastructure, this project could be the economic jump-start the region needs — and put New Hampshire skiing back on the radar. 

The Issue of Location

On a map, New Hampshire’s ski resorts seem ideally located for those looking to make the trip from many of the Northeast’s population centers. But while some southern New Hampshire ski areas benefit from their proximity to the Boston metro area, this convenience does not hold true for residents of other areas. 

For anyone coming from New York, Montreal, or the Mid-Atlantic, New Hampshire's best ski areas are actually quite the trip compared to far more competitive resorts in Vermont, New York, and, in some cases, even Quebec. And, even for those located in Boston, many of the most appealing ski destinations in the state are found far enough to the north that the drive time can push what can reasonably be considered a day trip for most visitors. In the two-to-three hour drive time it would take for most Boston-based skiers and riders to travel to Loon, Cannon, or Wildcat without traffic, the same visitors could make it to larger resorts in southern Vermont, such as Mount Snow and Stratton—and within three or four hours could arrive at some of the best resorts in the East with Stowe, Killington, or Jay Peak. 

Base areas at New Hampshire ski areas, such as this one at Wildcat Mountain, are much more day-trip-focused than larger areas in Vermont or Maine

Lackluster Ski Towns

When most people think of the quintessential small-town New England ski village, they’re probably picturing the iconic ski towns of Vermont. In some ways, this is where the lower population density of Vermont has worked in its favor. In Vermont, many towns grew to support the demand generated by the otherwise quite remote ski resorts in the 20th century when the sport was new. These towns were purpose-built to support the lodging and food capacity needed to accommodate those making the trip to these ski areas, and as a result they have a distinct charm and character all their own — one which makes them highly appealing for those looking for the full ski vacation experience. In contrast, New Hampshire’s ski areas are often quite detached from the state's bigger population centers, lacking in both the infrastructure and the character to draw in those looking for a comprehensive skiing experience. 

Many Vermont and Quebec resorts also boast more expansive lodging and food options than are available near many of the more remote north-central New Hampshire resorts, making weekend trips a far more feasible option. While on-mountain accommodations exist at some of New Hampshire’s ski resorts, they fall well short of the options that can be found at many Vermont competitors. Small-scale motels and condos exist near the base areas or even slopeside at many New Hampshire areas, but nowhere in the state can you find anything even close to the luxury Spruce Village of Stowe. Frankly, New Hampshire just doesn’t have the same kind of dedicated ski-towns that exist across Vermont. Instead, for most visitors, skiing in New Hampshire takes the character of a there-and-back day trip, traveling from further away accommodations in larger towns such as North Conway. As a result, New Hampshire is an unappealing destination for those looking to book a multi-day ski vacation, especially those looking for the idyllic character of a ski town in Vermont.

While New Hampshire ski areas may have views and vertical drop to compete with Vermont and Maine destinations, other issues mean they just can’t stack up to the competition

Final Thoughts

New Hampshire is a state with a rich ski history and unique terrain, worth seeking out for any dedicated skier or rider in the Northeast who’s looking for a taste of everything the region has to offer. However, due to its relatively low snow totals, small skiable acreage numbers, and comparative lack of on mountain infrastructure and accommodations, New Hampshire struggles to compete with Vermont and other states in the region.

That's not to say the state is without some features that make the trip worth it. If you’re traveling from the Boston metro area, are an adventurous backcountry skier, or just want to experience the unique topography of Cannon, Wildcat, or Bretton Woods, then maybe a trip to New Hampshire this ski season is right for you. But if you don’t fall under any of those categories, you’re probably still better off going to Vermont.