|Clearly you have a great idea in mind for an interesting and engaging piece here. I am indeed interested to read the continuation of the story, but unfortunately there are a number of issues with the piece that I feel must be addressed. As it stands, these issues are so prominent that portions of the narrative are actually difficult to read.
There are two major issues that occur throughout this piece, and they are largely overlapping. The first is a lack of brevity - that is, an excess of wordiness. In the words of Louise Brooks, "writing is 1% inspiration, 99% elimination;" throughout a large portion of the narration, you've simply used more words (sometimes a lot more) than you need, which makes the piece feel slow and cumbersome. The second is an issue of diction - word choice. To demonstrate what I mean, allow me to examine the first paragraph of this piece:
"Hidden behind a mass of spanish moss and magnolia trees, a decrepit sepulchre of a building rested chillingly among the chirping cicadas. This monumental structure of flint and granite had been ostracised from normal societal function, leaving the decaying walls to crumble by their own hand. Surprisingly, this edifice housed four hundred and seventy orphans of ages fourteen to seventeen in relative squalor, a product of the waning public safety ordinances. And whilst the children slept, a creeping squall hovered above the bayou."
Firstly, the most basic examination shows that "Spanish moss" should be capitalized, "sepulcher" is technically misspelled (although the archaic "re" ending is often allowed for flavor's sake) and "ostracized" is also misspelled. Digging deeper, the diction issues show themselves: an "edifice" is the front exterior of a house, usually referring specifically to appearance. Therefore, the "appearance of the front of the house" cannot "house" anything - the building itself "houses," but the "edifice" itself cannot. This sort of word choice issue occurs frequently throughout the piece.
A yet deeper analysis brings other concerns. Consider your use of adverb transitional words, as "surprisingly" in this portion. These words - "surprisingly," "unreasonably," "predicable" (to highlight just those that appear in the first two paragraphs), etc., when used in narration, tell your reader how they should interpret the sentence that follows. Generally, it is best to avoid this - let your reader decide how s/he feels about the story rather than telling them. When revealing a character's thoughts, of course, these words are more appropriate. Secondly, this paragraph could communicate the same information in far fewer words by condensing the description. I'll offer an example, then explain how I arrived at it. Consider this passage:
"Deep within the bayou, a mass of Spanish moss and magnolia trees gives way to a decrepit sepulcher. Largely forgotten by civilized folk, the large building now slumps by itself on the outskirts of society, left to crumble as it would. Nonetheless, it does not sit empty; instead, a full four-hundred and seventy orphans, ranging from just fourteen years to nearly eighteen, sheltered therein, living in squalor. And all around them, the bayou winds rage."
Here's why I did what I did: (1) the bayou needs to be introduced earlier in the story, to give a more concrete image of the setting - I myself pictured instead a dank forest, so by the time I got to "bayou" at the end of the sentence I had a strong image in my head that I had to totally change; (2) a sepulcher is already a "building," so "sepulcher of a building" is redundant - again, the fewer words, the better, as long as you don't change the meaning; (3) I cannot picture something resting "chillingly" - you might have meant it is "chilling" in appearance, but that is not what you said; (4) the walls don't actively choose to crumble, so the metaphor "by their own hands" is a bit off - instead, they simply collapse wherever they happen to collapse; (5) a "squall" is an intense wind - it doesn't creep, it rages, roars, or barges. I DO NOT suggest you simply use this passage - your writing is yours, and only you should rewrite it - but I offer it as an example of how revising word choice and condensing the material down can make your writing both clearer and more interesting.
Finally, the another issue I see in this piece is your consistent use of passive voice, which contributes greatly to the wordiness of the piece but also presents another problem. Passive voice is when the object of the verb is the subject of the sentence. For example, "Gary visited Amy" is active voice; "Amy was visited by Gary" is passive voice. Active voice is always preferred because it makes the writing more, well, active and, again, says the same thing in fewer words. Consider the sentence from later in the piece: "Yet, with the bustling excitement of the storm stirring about, and the intense percussion of the breaking roof tiles, this was not what caught the eye of the young orphan." Because of the two long appositives ("with the bustling excitement of the storm stirring about" and "the intense percussion of the breaking roof tiles"), the reader looses track of what "this" is, creating confusion. Instead of saying "with the bustling excitement of the storm stirring about," which is in passive voice, why not simply say something like "the storm's excited bustling?" Instead of "the intense percussion of the roof tiles," why not "the roof tile's percussive bangs?" These rephrases (for example purposes only - of course you should use your own words) put the same thoughts into active voice, making the ideas more clear in fewer words.
As I said at the beginning, your story concept is a good one - unfortunately, the piece need some serious revision before it can really shine. If you would be interested, I would be glad to send you my word-by-word analysis of the piece with further, more specific advice - please let me know. If there is anything else I can do to help, or if anything here as confused you, don't hesitate to send an email. Thanks for the opportunity to read this over!