Seems like a relevant and newsworthy story -- but, the coverage could have benefited from interviews with the city administration (as to why they are taking this step in the first place -- is it historical amnesia, something else?), and their response to these protests -- it is not everyday that middle school students protest. I also couldn't get sufficient historical background besides the fact that it was site of the first sit-in in the country -- some perspective as to how it relates to the larger civil rights movement (that the story alludes to briefly) would have made the reporting richer -- but then I am not from Baltimore either, and maybe this is common knowledge over there.
A very compelling story, but also a rather biased one. The developers are called "out of town" developers, emphasizing that they do not relate to the community, and there are no sources in favor of a new building. The video includes quite a few facts about the history of the building, and educates people quickly about the sit-in.
I enjoyed this article, yet it did not show both sides to the story. More official quotes are needed.What does it mean if the building is bulldozes besides a piece of history being lost? This is a question that needs to addressed. I like that the writer addresses what the Preservation Committee was ding, it makes for a good follow up story.