u do b&W cos the pic looks good in B&W and not for any other reasons, such as "the atmosphere and weather at the time wasn't good".
That is tantamount to say B&W is a kind of salvage or cover up job, and implying that B&W is a sort of "2nd class citizen". Of course there are people who use B&W to cover for flaws and as 2nd class citizens, but thats not how u ought to start esp since you are new to photography, for B&W is a separate genre all of its own.
But on the plus side u do seem to "get" B&W intuitively, as this pic is not a bad B&W, esp in the very tactile feel of the wet boards. The negative is the rather bland sky. I think you can be commended too for trying to bring up some details, but it was not too successful. There are few more tricks in B&W conversion to help that.
As to the other critique of empty composition, it depends on what was the "composition" intended for, which you only may know, if you had deliberately composed the scene before releasing the shutter. Or maybe you fired off instinctively.
For example, as a stock photo - or as wall paper for your computer - the picture is adequate, for users of stock photo usu prefer incomplete and "empty" composition to be filled up with other stuff - like words - to achieve whatever their intended message is to be. And then it is also adequate if you simply want to record the scene at that time and place and weather. But if you ask me if I want to hang the picture on my wall, I would not want to.
