The Trust for Public Land has just released its 2009 City Park Facts, tallying acreage and spending devoted to public recreation in the 77 largest US cities. Boston comes off fairly well, even if it doesn’t dominate in any area. Here are some of the highlights:

• Parkland comprises 16.3 percent of Boston’s land area, higher than the 77-city median of 8.6 percent (and higher than Philadelphia’s 12.6 percent and Chicago’s 8.2 percent). But the Hub falls short of New York’s 19.6 percent and Washington’s 19.4 percent. The lowest percentages were mostly in Western and Southern cities such as Fresno, Tucson, and Nashville.
• Because Boston is so densely populated, its sizable package of parks amounts to only 8.3 acres of park for every 1,000 residents, well below the median of 12.9 acres. (Anchorage has 1,794 acres per 1,000 residents; Jacksonville is a distant second, with 129 acres.) But Boston is second only to Washington, DC (12.9 acres), in per-capita parkland among the 13 most densely populated cities.
• Boston ranks 31st of 77 cities in total spending for parks and recreation per resident. In FY 2007, Boston spent $61 million, or $101 per resident. That’s higher than the median of $82 but not that impressive when compared to other high-income, high-cost-of-living metropolises. San Francisco spends the most ($300 per resident); Boston is also behind Washington, DC ($277), New York ($142), and Chicago ($126). The most meager parks department in the US is in Buffalo, which spent $3.2 million, or $12 per resident.
• The report includes Top 10 lists for specific types of recreation areas per capita, but Boston doesn’t make any of them. Portland, Oregon, was tops for ball diamonds and dog parks; Minneapolis led the way in tennis courts; Cincinnati had was the best equipped for swimming pools; and Las Vegas was ground zero for skateboard parks.