The counter argument seems to be that people could stop working, move to economically unproductive areas (where rent doesn't rise to consume all surplus income), and effectively retire on UBI. To me, this sounds like the polar opposite of a distributed economy, further cementing the rich-poor divide. But centralizing puppetmasters don't consolidate power by advocating for fiscal responsibility.
For the most highly productive places, a UBI isn't going to result in fresh bidding wars that substantially impact prices. For one, it's simply way too small to have anything but a marginal effect. For two, any plausible funding mechanism for a UBI will substantially tax people and investments in those areas. You're more likely to see a drop in prices in SF and Manhattan than an increase. (Yes, that means a decline in the standard of living for most people commenting here.)
A UBI would have a centrifugal effect, in that it would encourage many people to leave the most costly areas for cheaper areas. But, there would also be centripetal forces too, because of the microstructure of how labor mobility happens: many people are stuck where they live now in Bumblefuck because they lack any liquid capital and are stuck in an economic and social rut. The places that would see the real influx of people, and substantial inflation in real estate prices, are regions that are not top performers but also still economically productive.
That has winners and losers, and it does mean that some of the UBI would be consumed by real estate inflation. But it's implausible that all of it, or even a majority of it, would be.
Though supply of real goods also wouldn't remain static. To the extent that some people can't afford basic necessities, capital would shift to making those.